NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (1 Viewer)

[Galaxiom]

But the math used by the gloom-and-doom crowd regarding global warming / global climate change simply DOES NOT PREDICT REALITY. The temperatures continue to diverge - downward - from the predictions made by those IPCC equations.

Myth. The models do quite well especially considering the complexity and the computation limitations of modelling such a big system in fine enough detail. They have been calibrated against geological records and are good enough to show we need to take urgent action.

Decades ago it was projected that the temperature of the planet would rise substantially. It has risen substantially and continues to do so. You say they are proven wrong because it hasn't risen precisely as projected.

Where are your models that show the temperature rises are due to normal cycles? You don't have them of course because "natural cycles" is nothing more than an unsubstantiated handwave by denialists.

All known natural cycles have been accounted for. We are reaching a solar minimum and temperatures are not falling. You simply refuse to accept any evidence as sufficient. You will make further excuses about "unknown factors" as we move into the 2020s and temperatures continue to rise.

You advocate wasting further time by continuing to burn fossil fuels as usual. And how do you suppose we turn around suddenly when it becomes completely undeniable that climate change is costing trillions and making much of the planet uninhabitable?

Truth is you are an old man and don't care to change because you won't be much affected. Please ensure your grand children know exactly where you stand on this issue so they will treat your memory with the deserved disdain.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Greg, I understand there are strong feelings on this subject.

However I'm Aghast to see the personal direction your anger is taking you.

I have a lot of time for both you and Richard, I consider you both respected members of this forum, and I would hope both of you can continue your disagreement, and at the same time bring this respect to the fore.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Galaxiom]

I am becoming very impatient with the intransigence of some people. Particularly those who vote in complete ignorant bastards like Trump.

I have grandchildren and I can see what they will have to face because so little is being done. Their generation won't be kind to the memory of those who ruined their planet because of greed. They deserve to know who to blame.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I have been following this climate change Fiasco since it started. I have no idea what's causing it, and I'm convinced that no one else does either! Both sides wheel out this person, that person, this study or that study, and you all listen to it, but none of you actually do any research of your own. I have, I know how much all the percentage of increase in the total bulk of the atmosphere the supposedly increase in carbon dioxide is.

I know how many countries there are in the World, I looked at the percentages of carbon produced by each country, and I immediately knew there's no way on Earth you'll get ALL these countries to agree to reducing their carbon output!

So to both sides I would say, get your own facts, do your own reasoning, don't swallow all the bull....


I remember when butter was bad for you, and now it's good for you.

Sweeteners in diet drinks was supposed to be the next big thing, and now they have discovered that they have no effect on weight reduction, and are in fact quite poisonous.

I reckon I could list a dozen things if I put my mind to it, That was supposed to be good for you and then turned out to be bad for you and visa versa.. In fact, in the seventies the scientist believed we were moving into a new Ice Age!

Anyway what I'm really saying, is you are all getting lead by the nose, in whichever direction someone can lead you, and you are fighting your good friends and colleagues and you're not even arguing like gentlemen, but you are fighting and bitching at each other so as if you actually met each other you would kill each other!

And that's not right, and it's about time you saw that. That's the real problem, NOT global warming!

 

[Galaxiom]

In fact, in the seventies the scientist believed we were moving into a new Ice Age!

The vast majority of the carbon added to the atmosphere happened from the 90s.

Until the mid twentieth century the planet was on track to begin cooling into an ice age like it had done repeatedly on a 10,000 year cycle whose mode of influence is well understood.

The natural cycles denialists like to suggest as a reason for the warm period should be driving the temperature down but still it rises.

Your obvious lack of knowledge about such a simple aspect of the science shows you don't know near enough to "do your own research". It is you who is being led by the nose.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Your obvious lack of knowledge about such a simple aspect of the science shows you don't know near enough to "do your own research". It is you who is being led by the nose.

Oh no, I am well aware of my lack of knowledge.

It is the lack of knowledge of everyone else that concerns me.

But the real concern for me is that there is no debate.

Again, here the direction of this thread becomes adveserial. So we end up in a situation where both sides are fighting.

That means both sides, both composed of intelligent, widely read knowledgeable individuals end up despising each other for no good reason.

Hence I sit on the fence, neither side convinces me, for a start neither side is willing to listen to the other, a thread like this just becomes a "mine's bigger than yours", I'd say game, but it's actually a war, and people are seriously thinking about actually hurting others!

What would happen if you listened?

First identify what you agree on.

Next what you don't agree on.

In the grey area in-between, pick out a nugget that is interesting, and develop that, argue about it, just as strongly as you do now, but from a position of respect for all.

Now, if you are reading this thinking:-

No that'll never work..
Or
How naïve...
Or
This is stupid...

then that's normal.

But if you think, maybe.... Maybe I can learn something from the opposition, maybe I can work with someone with opposing views, then let me know and I'll find a suitable place to have such a useful, productive and rewarding discussion....

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Here's a list of nuggets:-

Tyres
Every vehicle has tyres, basically carbon that is ground in to a fine dust and released into the environment. Any study's on that ?

Vehicle waste heat.
Most vehicles are very inefficient.
Hence, what, 60% of the energy is directly transferred to the atmosphere. Any study's on that?

Renewables
The construction of solar panels / wind turbines generates more CO2 than the systems save. Any study's on that?

Politics
Scientific studies are funded by politically motivated organisations. Any study's on that?

Agricultural policies
Many countries encouraged the production of food crops after the second world war. Any study's on that?

Deforestation
Any study's on that?

Population increase
Any study's on that?

Industrial fishing
Any study's on that?

Battery at 15% be back later!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Steve R.]

This is a follow-up to Uncle Gizmo's posts. The way global warming is being disingenuously "sold" to the public is a scam. This is independent of any scientific findings, either pro or con, on this issue.

Newspeak: The most obvious and blatant example of obfuscation is changing the narrative from "global warming" to "climate change".

One Solution: Essentially the "global warming" crowd advocates only one approach to solving "global warming"; the control and management of carbon emissions. That is simplistic. The solving of environmental concerns will require addressing a whole host of concerns, such as increasing urbanization and the destruction of habitat. Who knows, single family homes, in the name of carbon control, may be deemed offensive as carbon "hogs". In the future they may be prohibited.

Zero-Cost Solutions: The "global warming" crowd avoids disclosing that complying with their mandates may adversely affect the standard of living. This is a "red flag" similar to changing the Newspeak narrative from "global warming" to "climate change". Carbon mandates, will mean more expensive products. It also may mean the non-availability of certain products. (The recent riots in France may be an indication that people do not want their standard of living reduced to comply with "global warming" objectives.)

Social Justice Concerns: HYPOTHETICAL for purposes of a simple (but incomplete) illustration to raise the concern. Suppose that the per capita carbon allocation is 100 units to maintain the Earth's temperature at its then current value. Those in the first world, such as the US and Europe may easily use 500 units of carbon. Those in the third world may only use 50 units. Obviously, those in the third world should not be denied an opportunity to improve their standard of living. Will that mean that those in the first world will need to reduce their carbon consumption so that those in the third world can have a better life? The "global warming" crowd to my knowledge has been quite on this.

Politicians Dream Issue: Promoting "global warming" is a politicians dream issue. It has easy public appeal and is in the future. They will be out of office before any repercussions occur and they will never be held accountable. They can distribute money, go to meetings, go to imposing public events with salivating crowds, and have grandiose appearances before the media. They will claim that this is a #1 issue that must be solved. They will claim to have the courage to solve it. But, when it gets to real world (now) problems, such as the current immigration crises, these politicians conveniently avoid taking any tough solution actions. This demonstrates that the politicians are only full of deceitful bluster before the media and really won't make the tough decisions when actually necessary.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I am becoming very impatient with the intransigence of some people. Particularly those who vote in complete ignorant bastards like Trump.

I have grandchildren and I can see what they will have to face because so little is being done. Their generation won't be kind to the memory of those who ruined their planet because of greed. They deserve to know who to blame.

Precisely why people cannot agree, oneside calls you names like ignorant while the other is expressing an opinion.

Comments like deplorable helped sink Hillary’s campaign.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Truth is you are an old man and don't care to change because you won't be much affected.

Truth is that I want the world to be pollution-free to the greatest extent possible because my grandsons deserve to have a cleaner environment. I would indeed like to see reductions in VARIOUS emitted materials. However, even if we did improve the situation with respect to all sorts of pollutants, I have no belief that climate change issues would be affected in the way you believe they would.

G, I have posted links to reports showing that Antarctic ice caps are getting thicker and wider, not thinner and smaller. I have posted reports showing that the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide is (a) logarithmic and (b) a narrow-band effect that only traps VERY FEW, HIGHLY SPECIFIC wavelengths of infra-red energy reflections/emissions. The rest of that heat has NO INTERACTION with CO2.

This "greenhouse effect" is specific to the Carbon P orbital bond with an Oxygen P orbital (i.e. the chemical bond that holds together two oxygens with one carbon). The energy of that orbital is promoted (to a higher quantum number) by interaction with a photon of a specific amount of energy. This photon of electromagnetic radation represents an energy packet for which the exact amount of energy, using the DeBroglie equations, has a range equivalent to a few nanometers wide in a spectrum of wavelengths from far infrared to ultraviolet, SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE in frequency range.

Do you honestly think I DON'T understand what is going on with this greenhouse effect? AND did you realize that the mechanism isn't that the CO2 traps the infra-red? It doesn't. Instead, it RE-RADIATES IT. That "excited orbital" is NOT STABLE. It emits the same photon in a form of phosphorescence. And because the molecule has enough time to tumble, at least half of that re-radiation is OUTWARD away from the planet i.e. the heat escapes anyway. Greg, DON'T YOU DARE insinuate that this old man doesn't know anything about the CO2 effects on absorption of heat.

I believe that your fervor is admirable but misplaced. You have bought into something on which I have always been a skeptic. I know after looking at the longer-term data that the problem is simple. The climate-change crowd isn't taking enough data into account and we have pretty good ice-core studies from Greenland that provide STRONG evidence of the cyclic nature of our climate. INCREDIBLY STRONG evidence that these heating cycles have occurred before - and of all of them, ONLY the ones in the 20th century could possibly have anything to do with increased carbon footprints.

You chastise me for voting for Trump. I didn't. I voted AGAINST Hillary and Trump was all that was left that wouldn't waste the vote. But YOU have obviously bought in to the lies of Al Gore, Mr. "I invented the Internet" himself.

The IPCC predictions have been published and they are DIVERGING from actual temperatures by a greater amount as time goes on. In science, a continually increasing divergence of reality from theory has another name: Disproving the theory's accuracy.

Greg, this "old man" has seen a lot of people make a lot of mistakes. The simplest one is this: You can take ANY FORMULA YOU WANT and crank in some numbers and crank out some results. It always happens for just about any formula. BUT... the question must ALWAYS be: Was that formula appropriate for the situation being observed?

The answer to that question is ALWAYS that if the formula is accurate, you have corroborated the applicability of the model (though you have not proved it). AND if the formula's predictions diverge from reality, you have proven the inapplicability of the model. I see the latter situation with the IPCC model.

I try not to be insulted, G. I'm an old man, true. I have seen the effects of misplaced fervor in New Orleans during the Civil Rights movement. (Yes, I was alive at that time and aware of what was going on.) A lot of white people thought the world was going to end. I didn't see the basis for their hatred. I don't hang around with thugs of any description, but I also don't miscast all members of any given ethnicity as thugs.

I see your misplaced fervor now. If you are going to start a series of argumentum ad hominem attacks on me, I guess I can't stop you. But I deeply regret that it shows you in an unpleasant light. If you are angry enough to resort to insults and insinuations of my incompetence, I wonder if it isn't time for you to step back and ask yourself if this is the person you want to be?

 

[Galaxiom]

I have posted reports showing that the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide is (a) logarithmic and (b) a narrow-band effect that only traps VERY FEW, HIGHLY SPECIFIC wavelengths of infra-red energy reflections/emissions. The rest of that heat has NO INTERACTION with CO2.

This "greenhouse effect" is specific to the Carbon P orbital bond with an Oxygen P orbital (i.e. the chemical bond that holds together two oxygens with one carbon). The energy of that orbital is promoted (to a higher quantum number) by interaction with a photon of a specific amount of energy. This photon of electromagnetic radation represents an energy packet for which the exact amount of energy, using the DeBroglie equations, has a range equivalent to a few nanometers wide in a spectrum of wavelengths from far infrared to ultraviolet, SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE in frequency range.

And that narrow band is enough to heat the planet. Name dropping scientific equations doesn't change the fact.

While I do respect your chemistry credentials, you are not an atmospheric scientist or climatologist. Your analysis is simplistic. Don't you think hundreds of scientists working in the field would have a better idea of what is happening than you?

Do you honestly think I DON'T understand what is going on with this greenhouse effect?

I think you know enough to be dangerous while you accumulate information based on confirmation bias. It is clear that you greatly overestimate your knowledge in the field.

It is a pity you are not as skeptical of the climate change denial propositions as you are of the robust science. What you posted about the absorption being logarithmic and narrow band is old hat for anyone familiar with the subject. It has already been debunked as overly simplistic.

AND did you realize that the mechanism isn't that the CO2 traps the infra-red? It doesn't. Instead, it RE-RADIATES IT. That "excited orbital" is NOT STABLE. It emits the same photon in a form of phosphorescence. And because the molecule has enough time to tumble, at least half of that re-radiation is OUTWARD away from the planet i.e. the heat escapes anyway. Greg, DON'T YOU DARE insinuate that this old man doesn't know anything about the CO2 effects on absorption of heat.

Of course I realise, that is rudimentary knowledge. The fact that you post it as though it would be some kind of revelation suggests your knowledge of the greenhouse effect science is indeed rudimentary. Do you think professional scientists in the climatology field don't understand this a lot better than you?

I get tired of denialists spouting forth supposed revelations and videos claiming to debunk the science without taking the slightest effort to assess its veracity before passing it on. Go and try researching with the idea that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real. Nobody ever gets to the facts without trying on both hats.

 

[Galaxiom]

The most obvious and blatant example of obfuscation is changing the narrative from "global warming" to "climate change".

That is so last century as a criticism. Both apply. The globe is warming at a rate unprecedented in geological history. It is causing the climate to change.

Now what is your point?

Carbon mandates, will mean more expensive products. It also may mean the non-availability of certain products.

Solar power is already cheaper than power coming in from the grid and cheaper than new coal fired power. Moving more towards solar will reduce the cost of goods. It will also be the largest economic stimulus in the history of the planet when those resisting it get out of the way.

Suppose that the per capita carbon allocation is 100 units to maintain the Earth's temperature at its then current value. Those in the first world, such as the US and Europe may easily use 500 units of carbon. Those in the third world may only use 50 units. Obviously, those in the third world should not be denied an opportunity to improve their standard of living. Will that mean that those in the first world will need to reduce their carbon consumption so that those in the third world can have a better life? The "global warming" crowd to my knowledge has been quite on this.

Power consumption continues to fall. We do more with less than ever before. The developing world will be improving their standard of living using low carbon technologies. The developed world has no excuses and should be enthusiastically embracing low carbon technologies.

Those of us who actually understand the facts already have. My electricity bills are trivial because I have a solar system that has produced more than 40 MWhrs of electricity over the past five years even though I sell the excess back to the grid at a price only a third of what I buy it at.

We will shortly be installing a battery and will virtually never need to use coal fired power again.

BTW My system has already produced about as much the electricity as burning 20 tonnes of coal. Think about that.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Do you think professional scientists in the climatology field don't understand this a lot better than you?

Given the way they mangle logic and use correlations without demonstrating the validity of making said correlations? Given the way that they look at their model with increasing divergence from reality and sit back comfortably with a clearly broken model? In a word, yes.

But since you dismiss my credentials, may I ask YOUR credentials? Is this going to become like Bill Pullman and Rick Morannis in Spaceballs where they face off to see who has the bigger "schwartz" while the ship they are in approaches "ludicrous speed"? G, I applaud your efforts at the use of solar energy and of minimization of your carbon footprint.

The developed world has no excuses and should be enthusiastically embracing low carbon technologies.

No excuses other than the poisonous by-products involved in refining and manufacturing solar panels and batteries? No excuses other than the limited lifetime of storage batteries and the poisonous disposal problem that kills the soil while reducing some small amount of atmospheric pollution? That is "robbing Peter to pay Paul" and I'll have none of it! MY motivation has nothing to do with what I see as natural climate cycles and everything to do with poisoning the environment in a way that causes sickness.

It appears we have no common ground on this subject. I see it as an issue of cyclic climate change pursuing its natural course whereas you have bought in to the hysteria fomented by those whose political and social agendas depends on your emotional subjugation. In the years 2019 and 2020, the predictions will perhaps prove one of us has chosen the wrong side of the viewpoint because your model predicts increases in global average temperature where as my models predict decreases.

Those of us who actually understand the facts

Please forgive me if I express some degree of skepticism. I will try to not be derisive about it.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Your analysis is simplistic.

This isn't a chemistry forum. If I went into the detailed computations, do you honestly think the folks here would pay attention? Would YOU? I am mindful of those folks here who are also trying to follow this discussion.

My intent was to show you that I understood the underlying mechanism of the greenhouse effect - in essence, a scattering of radiated infra-red photons to keep a few more of them within the atmosphere. What YOU seem to have forgotten is that the blanket works both ways. CO2 does NOT CARE about the direction from which an appropriately energetic photon originated. Given the symmetry issues and random positioning due to tumbling, each molecule of CO2 will absorb the appropriate photons from any direction. It will scatter inbound as well as outbound, too. So there is some argument that the thicker layer of CO2 would reflect more inbound heat from the sun as well as reflecting more radiated heat from the ground. Which means the effect should be a wash.

By the way, focusing on CO2 is basing your complaint on the wrong player. The biggest greenhouse gas is H2O - water vapor - and that isn't a major industrial emission. It is at best a minor one. The far greater source is ocean evaporation. I don't think you can do much about that, so of course you have to focus on the thing you think you CAN affect and I don't blame you for that.

G, don't forget we actually want the same thing but for different reasons. We both want to reduce waste emissions - you for climate reasons, me for health reasons. Is that difference in reasons sufficient grounds for you to get insultingly nasty with me? If we could improve the purity of our atmosphere to reduce disease and it happened to have an effect on climate despite my doubts, I wouldn't be upset. It IS, after all, a complex problem. I'm human and CERTAINLY can have omitted something. But at the moment, I don't think I am doing so and haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise. (That is NOT an invitation...)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

One last shot, G. Most of the Anthropogenic Climate Change articles are based on some type of correlation of temperatures to atmospheric CO2 concentration. But you yourself said "Correlation does not show causation." You said this in post #37 of the "Should there be the death penalty" thread. This is the point I have been trying to make for some time and you agree with me (or did, at the time) that unqualified correlations have no particular relevance.

So... whassup with that?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Another interesting video from an atmospheric physicist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

This one suggests flawed source data for SOME of the observation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2u87d_FnME

This one is a congressional testimony session that calls into question exactly HOW much effect CO2 really has. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w

 

[The_Doc_Man]

These links are from Tony Heller's YouTube series: "Fraud In The National Climate Assessment" - a multi-part series.

Part I looks at 20th century data on 90-degree days. By ignoring pre-1960 data, the cooling trends are hidden. Temperatures are DECREASING but by focusing on short-term data, you can get shorter-term charts that TEMPORARILY increase. Tony presents a chart of temperature vs. CO2 and guess what? Higher CO2 correlates to FEWER high-temperature days!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j46mnIcz330

Part II looks at data from the first half of the 1900s to show that the disappearance of Arctic Ice is a cyclic thing. This is strong evidence that the global warming alarm about arctic ice is merely cherry-picking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH8ZW1vkkUU&t=1109s

Part III looks at the issues associated with misapplication and misunderstanding of radiative heating mechanisms and the "greenhouse effect." Tony points out that the CO2 increases are an EFFECT, not a CAUSE. Oceans outgas CO2 as they get warmer because of their lesser capacity to hold onto the CO2. Or, if you prefer, hydrated CO2 loses the water of hydration that kept it in the ocean because the energy of the hotter CO2 exceeds the strength of the electrostatic bond that holds the CO2 close to the H2O.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrRYtRkCKms

To me, the most DISREPUTABLE thing a scientist can do is to truncate data in order to hide things that would show his/her conclusions are false - and that is what is happening here. By refusing to consider longer-term data (truncating your data), you can pick a point where you can get a SHORT-TERM prediction that is favorable to your agenda. But when you look at longer term data and your agenda is shown to be false, there is a real problem - the problem of a researcher SELLING OUT to jump on the government grant gravy train. Scientists who falsify data DESERVE to have their reputations shot down in flames and to be forever barred from government grants.

Pay particular attention to the beginning of part III, which includes excerpts from a speech by then president Eisenhower about how we needed to watch out because of the trend for government contracts to replace original research and how computer analysis would replace analytical thought.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Here is a link explaining that CO2 content isn't significant compared to other factors,by comparing Earth, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter atmospheres to explore greenhouse effects: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WcVGXA6Lr8

A couple of links regarding things such as flooding and hellfire predictions. Tony Heller is showing the CYCLIC nature of such predictions as we have seen in the last decade. Guess what? The same old story came out in the 1920s and 30s.

Heating trends, fires, and "hellfire" predictions (From 1930s as a comparison to modern temperatures): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or5K-_JDPlc

Grand flood scares (ocean level rising scares): (From 1926 and 2017): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhYTr9Evqjo

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Galaxiom: In post #71 of this thread, you said this:

Nobody ever gets to the facts without trying on both hats.

I am a skeptic because I HAVE looked at other articles. Those hats don't fit. I have posted several my hats for YOU to try on. I'm waiting.

 

[Galaxiom]

Doc. You post rubbish from Tony Heller and expect to be taken seriously as someone who is adopting an intelligent and balanced view? The only bigger idiot than Heller is Steven Goddard.

He is clueless. Everything he claims has already been thoroughly debunked by actual climate scientists. By posting it you demonstrate you don't even have a basic grasp of the subject.

All you are doing is indulging in confirmation bias. You have never shown the slightest sign of seriously considering Climate Change as real. The more you post the more seriously I contemplate that you have a serious case of Dunning-Kruger effect.