NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

[AccessBlaster]

During the Trinity test, Enrico Fermi recalled Teller's idea of igniting the atmosphere. In an attempt to relieve some tension, he started taking bets on whether the test would destroy the world, or merely glass the State of New Mexico.

They did it anyway. CERN is another example, they do not know the outcome until its to late.

We take it on FAITH that science has not been hijack for some unforeseen motivations, including monetary.

Question everything, its healthy.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Since I first mentioned it in May I have been studying this diagram:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png My first question is, is this diagram acceptable to everyone as a correct representation of the energy falling on the Earth and the energy being radiated by the Earth? State your observations on the diagram now, because I don't want to go to a lot of work In analysing the diagram, and then have someone say that they don't agree with the diagram!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Except science actually delivers on its promises, confirming it truths beyond possibility of denial.

But then the AGW types predict things that have not happened yet but are YEARS overdue. And those failures don't seem to bother you.

Unfortunately you have been proven incapable of drawing logical conclusions because you clearly don't understand the science.

And here we go again - more argumentum ad hominem that totally discredits YOU because it is the style of a fanatic. Greg, you can't see it because you are too deep in it. But this is the EXACT tactic of the religious proselytizer who does his best to discredit deniers of deities. You have stated long ago that you were atheist, but I have to challenge that statement. You have a god - AGW. Go ahead and bow down to it.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I've just found this website:- There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming and it's absolutely fascinating! Basically thinking along the same lines as myself, the CO2 mechanism just doesn't add up!

Take this extract in particular:-
Heinz Hug showed that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.

Another Extract:-
This is nothing new. Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

And on this page:-

Saturation is the Demise of Global Warming Fakery
Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in traveling 10 metes in the near surface atmosphere, which is called saturation. Doubling the amount of CO2 shortens the distance to 5 meters. Shortening the distance is not increasing the heat.

CO2 in NOT the Culprit:-
Carbon dioxide does absorb infrared radiation. CO2 is very good at absorbing infrared radiation. It is so good at absorbing infrared radiation that it absorbs "ALL" of the energy. This means that adding extra CO2 does not increase the amount of infrared radiation the CO2 is absorbing because it's already absorbed "ALL" the infrared radiation that it is possible for CO2 to absorb!

As I suspected, they discovered an effect, an increase in climate temperature, saw that CO2 was rising and said that there IS the culprit!

What is Causing Global Warming?
I think the Global Warming that is attributed to CO2 is not coming from the CO2 absorbing infrared radiation directly from the sunlight, the Global Warming is because the burning of the coal, oil & gas produces waste heat and it is this waste heat that is causing the global warming. A minor distinction, but it's just as bad!

The point is without understanding what's going on, we are in danger of tackling the wrong problem! Although in this case, we are accidentally tackling the wrong problem in exactly the right way! By reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.

 

[Mark_]

Uncle,

I'm surprised both you and Doc are still posting. From what I've seen the "CO2" crowd has made up their mind that there is no cause other than "CO2" and doesn't accept that other activities influence climate. They won't accept that different crops can increase global temperatures. They don't want to listen to how cutting down the forest to build a city can increase temperatures even though the Heat Island effect is well known. They won't accept that humans do a lot of things to increase global temperatures since they have their "One solution".

For many, it is part of a political agenda that actually has nothing to do with climate change. I've seen too many pieces by American politicians that advocate socialist policies in the name of fighting "Climate Change" that, if implemented, would do far more harm than good. This mentality isn't limited to America. Looking at the Aral sea as a "poster child" for damaging the environment we can see this type of activity world wide.

 

[Galaxiom]

And here we go again - more argumentum ad hominem that totally discredits YOU because it is the style of a fanatic.

The ultimate ad hominem attack is the claim that countless tens of thousands of scientists have all been involved in a huge conspiracy and lied for their whole careers for financial gain.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

tens of thousands of scientists have all been involved in a huge conspiracy and lied for their whole careers for financial gain

It's happened before, many times. The most memorable, scientists defending the tobacco industry.





Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[Galaxiom]

It's happened before, many times. The most memorable, scientists defending the tobacco industry.

The tobacco denialists involved a tiny fraction of scientists whose unsubstantiated opinions were in conflict with the established research. They had been bought by the tobacco industry.

Several of them who lived long enough went on to back the fossil fuel industry denying climate change.

The climate denialist poster boy, Fred Singer is one of the most notorious, having backed the tobacco industry over second hand smoke.

There are several more including your favourite video maker who also backed tobacco.

 

[Galaxiom]

Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in traveling 10 metes in the near surface atmosphere, which is called saturation. Doubling the amount of CO2 shortens the distance to 5 meters. Shortening the distance is not increasing the heat.

That simplistic analysis shows culpable naivety about the transmission of radiation through a gas. The CO2 saturation myth is easily debunked by anyone who has any comprehension of the subject. Atmospheric Science 1.01 and you clearly failed.

Radiation is absorbed and re-emitted over and over again as it passes through the atmosphere. The greenhouse gasses encountered continue to affect the transmission all the way up.

Crucially, it isn't at the ground level that matters. Greenhouse gases inhibit the ability of heat to be radiated at the top of the atmosphere by forcing the ultimate radiation zone higher to where the air is colder. Colder air radiates less heat and that inevitably means a hotter planet.

Just admit that you don't have anything like the understanding of physics to "think for yourself" on this subject.

Moreover, you are not thinking for yourself at all. You are simply regurgitating what you have read without the slightest attempt to critically analyse it. You won't learn anything at all while you continue to seek out sites laden with nonsensical notions that confirm your prejudices.

However I know that no matter how many times you and others here are shown to be completely wrong on this subject, you will all remain ignorant. None of you has ever acknowledged your multitude of errors even once. You just go away for a little while and come back with more nonsense.

You remain committed to ignorance because you have been duped in to thinking that you will be personally worse off if the world does anything to change how we obtain our energy. The people who are fooling you are the very same ones who have made trillions from fossil fuels. Too bad you are so gullible as to spread their propaganda for them.

 

[Galaxiom]

But then the AGW types predict things that have not happened yet but are YEARS overdue.

Try telling that to Europeans next week.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The ultimate ad hominem attack is the claim that countless tens of thousands of scientists have all been involved in a huge conspiracy and lied for their whole careers for financial gain.

Science has allowed itself to be manipulated and basterdized by pollical figures like Al Gore, AOC and Bill Nye the "science" guy. When outrageous claims go unchecked by the science community they are complicit.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Greenhouse gases inhibit the ability of heat to be radiated at the top of the atmosphere by forcing the ultimate radiation zone higher to where the air is colder. Colder air radiates less heat and that inevitably means a hotter planet.

No.

Radiation by absorption of energy is quantized; it does not depend on anything but the quantum vibrational state of the molecule in question. Air temperature (colder in high atmosphere) will CERTAINLY affect collisional transfers (a.k.a. convection), but unless you are claiming a mechanism of incandescence for this radiation (which I could not believe you WOULD claim), air temperature is not involved in infra-red absorption and re-radiation. Are you seriously claiming that the lower air temperature at higher altitudes improves collision transfers? Because at higher altitudes you have less dense atmosphere and thus a reduction in collisions due to that lesser density, leaving radiation as the primary mechanism for heat. But that is what the AGW crowd has claimed as the mechanism anyway.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Another mechanism to account for global warming has been discovered:-

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/201...-2600-following-imminent-grand-solar-minimum/

Extract:-
A reconstruction of solar total irradiance suggests that there is an increase in the cycle-averaged total solar irradiance (TSI) since the Maunder minimum by a value of about 1–1.5*Wm−2 27. This increase is closely correlated with the similar increase of the average terrestrial temperature26,43.*

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Here is a simple, logical, been done before climate change solution:-

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...le-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[Rx_]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...ge-nasa-noaa-news-solar-minimum-space-weather

The Solar Minimum - now there is the 187 year Grand Solar minimum - plenty of new articles about a mini-ice age.
"“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

www.iceagefarmer.com/
A group "Ice Age Farmers" has been preparing for this. The planting of crops in the US, UK, EU, China, .... due to cold wet weather may be down 40% to 60%.
A possibility of famine becomes real.
The Founder of Green Peace in Canada has documented that higher CO2 levels make trees and plants grow faster. This has lead to food to populate the Earth. CO2 levels are no higher than they were in past Earth cycles.

 

[Galaxiom]

Here is a simple, logical, been done before climate change solution:-

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...le-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

"Crowther emphasised that it remains vital to reverse the current trends of rising greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and forest destruction, and bring them down to zero. He said this is needed to stop the climate crisis becoming even worse and because the forest restoration envisaged would take 50-100 years to have its full effect of removing 200bn tonnes of carbon."

 

[isladogs]

Antarctic sea ice is now DECLINING dramatically

When this thread was started back in 2015, Antarctic sea ice had indeed been rising for reasons explained earlier in the thread. The maximum amount was in 2014

However new research has confirmed a dramatic fall since 2014 and levels are now at the lowest for around 40 years A brief upturn in 2017 has since been reversed. Overall as much sea ice has been lost from the Antarctic in 4 years as the Arctic lost in 34 years. Reasons for this dramatic drop are not yet understood

There are many online articles about this new research. For example:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208180-antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically-and-we-dont-know-why/

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

New study confirms C02 is having very little effect on global warming:-

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

As always, I'm interested in respectful discussion.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[AccessBlaster]

As always, I'm interested in respectful discussion.

If that were true you wouldn't post contrary views designed to make liberals head explode.