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

[Mike375]

Also, if we have zero man made CO2 what impact will that have on plant life and crops?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Greenhouse gases isn't necessarily a pollutant, just like weather isn't necessarily climate.

The most significant greenhouse gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Jan 3, 2019

 

[Vassago]

I wasn't even necessarily starting with renewable energy sources, but ok.

Studies have shown that cats kill thousands of times more birds than wind turbines annually, so that's a moot point.

Obviously, it will take work when it comes to energy.

What about things that all of the rest of us can do individually? Things that we can do to pressure our local governments to help with?

 

[Vassago]

Also, if we have zero man made CO2 what impact will that have on plant life and crops?

Huh? You breathe, don't you?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
11.17.08

Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

Kathryn Hansen
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

This is what heretics of science believed a mere 11 years ago. Remember 20 years ago we only had 20 years to live. Now we been given a reprieve, now we have 12 years. Thank your pagan God's for this.

 

[Mike375]

Huh? You breathe, don't you?

Yes buy we are talking a big reduction.

Plants and crops would should have adapted to the highe output of CO2.

The point is yho simlply can't reduce man made CO2 and look at doing so in isolation.

 

[Mike375]

The climate people are real dopes, maybe they are on dope It is Spring in Ausralia but cold. The article even mentiones hows 155 of them braved the weather which is why the rest of the beach is empty. We haveour biggest car race this weekend and it is inland from Sydney but this weekend is real cold.

The fools should have picked a better time. I guess their "climate advisers" git it wrong .....again

https://au.news.yahoo.com/manly-bea...8K_Dv9s7FKj-9BFgYKSdM4XsMQFKuQkDX3desCU3zehKD

 

[Mike375]

Te climate alarmists talk about an average in temperature of 2C by 2030 and the world will end etc.

What is the difference between the average temperature in Montana and Florida?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

What is the difference between the average temperature in Montana and Florida?

Well... you measure one from a beach and one from a mountain?

 

[Mike375]

Well... you measure one from a beach and one from a mountain?

A big difference is what I would call radiant heat. For example 100F in Sydney is very different to 100F in the outback where we shoot. In the outback things like the mud guards on are a car, a scope on a rifle etc get far hotter etc. and etc.

Just in the state of New South Wales the average temperature difference across the state is way more than 2C.

For me to live in the upper part of the USA or Europe I would need some serious global warming to take place.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Vassago, something you mentioned recently in this thread has been an issue of mine for years. Galaxiom doesn't like me because I'm a skeptic on whether Climate Change is anthropogenic. However, I'm with you on reducing a lot of industrial emissions for a totally different reason.

The math on climate change has never impressed me. The biochemical pathways that lead from a given pollutant to a definite disease have always depressed me. I want to clean up the environment because of disease. IF it happens that it changes global warming, then GREAT! Two birds with one stone, can't fault that efficiency.

You can find literally hundreds of medical research papers that show every step in the biochemical process where by a certain pollutant causes emphysema or a particular pollutant triggers asthma or some airborne particulate leads to black lung disease... you get the message, I'm sure.

My position in one paragraph:
Does Earth's climate change? Yes - it does (and it has changed over millennia). Is that change or the rate of that change anthropogenic? I have doubts on grounds of methodology and robustness of the correlations. Do industrial pollutants cause diseases? Yes, without doubt. Should we get rid of pollutants? Yes, without doubt. Will pollution cleanup help the issues of climate change? Damned if I know. Let's try it and find out.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

What is the difference between the average temperature in Montana and Florida?

OK, I made a joke in my first answer, but then to be fair, I looked it up. Different maps show slight variations because of differences in presentation, but as of today, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:30 AM Eastern Time Zone = 4:30 GMT, the Weather Channel's national temperature map shows that south Florida around Miami was about 78 degr. F while central Montana around Great Falls was about 20 degr. F, or 48 degrees difference.

 

[Mike375]

OK, I made a joke in my first answer, but then to be fair, I looked it up. Different maps show slight variations because of differences in presentation, but as of today, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:30 AM Eastern Time Zone = 4:30 GMT, the Weather Channel's national temperature map shows that south Florida around Miami was about 78 degr. F while central Montana around Great Falls was about 20 degr. F, or 48 degrees difference.

A 2 degree increase would sure get lost there.

I still need someone to explain to me how an average increase in temperature at the Antarctic will cause the ice to melt. Maybe the melting point of ice will drop was below 0C or 32F

Maybe someone has numbers for the following scenario. If we could magically shift all the ice on the Antarctic to the ocean, as the ice melted and latent heat of fusion would be in this equation, what drop would there be in the ocean temperature and hence has much would the ocean shrink by?

 

[isladogs]

I still need someone to explain to me how an average increase in temperature at the Antarctic will cause the ice to melt. Maybe the melting point of ice will drop was below 0C or 32F

Here's a simple explanation for you....
The Antarctic has both land ice and sea ice. As sea water contains salt it does indeed melt below several degrees below 0C. In addition contact between the surrounding sea water will cause some of the sea ice to melt.
Average temperatures at both poles are rising faster than the global average changes so the effects are more pronounced. As more ice melts, this reduces the reflectivity of the area so more heat is absorbed in a positive feedback loop.

 

[Mike375]

Here's a simple explanation for you....
The Antarctic has both land ice and sea ice. As sea water contains salt it does indeed melt below several degrees below 0C. In addition contact between the surrounding sea water will cause some of the sea ice to melt.
Average temperatures at both poles are rising faster than the global average changes so the effects are more pronounced. As more ice melts, this reduces the reflectivity of the area so more heat is absorbed in a positive feedback loop.

I know water ice has a slightly lower melting point BUT it is already in the ocean.

To get all the ice of the land and given its temperature what would happen to the temperature of the ocean. As you know the ice on the Antarctic is more than a couple of feet thick, more like several thousand feet. Lots of the stuff.

I have often wondered about the reflective issue and the land of the Antarctic. Sure the land would get hotter is no reflective surface what about the atmosphere above it.

How faster (in degrees) is the temperature at the poles rising. One thing for sure and that is it needs to do a lot of rising to melt the ice on the Antarctic given its current temperature and the amount of ice on the Antarctic. It is not like warming at there are no convection currents and we know ice is a terrible conductor of heat.

 

[Mike375]

I forgot another question

I seem to remember reading or seeing somewhere that ocean ice or icebergs are not salt all the way through because in the freezing process the salt migrates towards the surface.

 

[Mike375]

Does anyone have an opinion why pro man made climate change is very much the left media and anti man made climate change is very much the conservative media.

I find the left have very inconsistent views. For example in Australia both the left media and left political parties all say unless Australia moves to renewable energy the Great Barrier Reef will come to an end. Given Australia is only 1.3% of man made CO2 that suggests that climate change is not global.

 

[Galaxiom]

CO2 levels might well be an effect rather than a cause

Of course releasing 100 MILLION tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY DAY wouldn't have anything to do with increasing carbon dioxide levels.

And you actually expect to be taken as a someone who has a clue on atmospheric science.

 

[Mike375]

Of course releasing 100 MILLION tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY DAY wouldn't have anything to do with increasing carbon dioxide levels.

And you actually expect to be taken as a someone who has a clue on atmospheric science.

The The_Doc_Man is not the first and won't be the last person to raise CO2 levels as an effect rather than a cause.

So far all you do, if I was to summarise all your posts, is just say …… that just proves you don't understand climate change science or similar …..

Of course the sun couldn't possibly have an effect on temperature and climate conditions on earth Just ignore the sun.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And you actually expect to be taken as a someone who has a clue on atmospheric science.

No, but I expect to be taken as a person whose knowledge of scientific experimentation and statistical correlation is enough to spot issues. PhD degrees awarded for successful experimentation tend to prove that I knew enough to convince five other PhD-level professors that I knew how science worked. Let's just say that you chose to focus on volume of emissions. I am focusing on methodology. We disagree on cause and effect.

Oddly enough, we do not disagree on the need to clean up all that emission. We just have different motives. If we can clean up emissions enough to reduce pollution-caused diseases and it happens to have beneficial effect on climate as well, I won't look that gift horse in the mouth. But you are SO freakin' adamant and can't get past that veneer of "it is my way or the highway." Who died and made you God? Oh, wait... you and I agree on something else, too, regarding deities. So scratch that last question.