Northern hemisphere sees in early spring due to global warming

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
I willing to change my mind in the face of evidence of course but as a betting man am confident that If read it I would find that it does not back you up and would find that you or the blog where you heard about it from is misrepresenting it.

As I noted, you don't accept the Smithsonian Institute as a knowledgeable source.

spot wrote:
So an animal that has adapted to cold over millions of years of evolution does better in the warm, interesting theory you have did you invent it all by yourself? That explains the polar bear on that island in lost.

spot wrote: Notice I don't defend litesong because I know he is a nut...

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

You don't even know what he's thinking. You've even argued with me concerning the energy balance of the Earth using grade school pictures that while right in the general sense are totally misleading in reality. The very fact that fossil fuel exists disproves the idea that the Earth can be treated as a "blackbody" and has ALWAYS been treated as a greybody by knowledgeable scientists.

Either grow up or hide under your bed from the coming doom.

No I don't know what he is thinking but I know what he is writing and its bollocks. he is the one who thinks everything is a blackbody so If you want to have that argument take it up with him not me.

Spot wrote,
So an animal that has adapted to cold over millions of years of evolution does better in the warm, interesting theory you have did you invent it all by yourself?

litesong wrote:

spot wrote: Notice I don't defend litesong because I know he is a nut...

Spot... not a nut. I am here for a completely different reason than you. I found (on other websites, of which I see much commonality to this site) a large percentage of AGW deniers to also be uneducated & racist, even with the ability to be threateners. I have had my wife threatened & I have been threatened. If I were to publish here the threats I have had made against my wife & me on other sites, you would know why I am so adamantly opposed to AGW denier liar whiners, not only for their anti-AGW views, but their acceptance of inhuman philosophies to hammer their way thru humanity.
I also believe you accept AGW denier liar whiner contentions that I am uneducated. I need NOT prove myself to the ilk of AGW denier liar whiners. But to a much lesser extent, I need NOT prove myself to you. Saying that then, I do have a re-construction of the accepted form of the one of the Galaxy Superclusters. I do support your activities here, even tho you have never acknowledged me.... to my knowledge.

One finality.... some AGW denier liar whiners, who do have pukey proud pig racist philosophy, would kill those who oppose them.... specially people they consider to be of non-white races. The threats my wife & I have endured are the VERY PROOF of the inhumanity of large numbers of AGW denier liar whiners.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: No one here has threatened you or your wife. No one has on Topix either....If people have threatened you, it is for other reasons than AGW. It might be because you are so hard headed...

Wake wrote:

Everything that has an energy balance IS considered to be a blackbody. Because it is more complex than that doesn't make it untrue. You are the one that understands next to nothing but are busy showing it to the world.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spot wrote,
So an animal that has adapted to cold over millions of years of evolution does better in the warm, interesting theory you have did you invent it all by yourself?

Yes duffass, that is correct. Admittedly I posted before looking it up. Applied common sense and confirmed with google. You should try it. Turns out the portion of your article about the caribou was entirely false, claiming migration to calving grounds is triggered by amount of daylight. It also claims lack of nutrition for the reason calves die. All fabricated lies. Here's a clip of the truth if you actually care. I suspect you don't.

Pregnant cows destined for the calving grounds initiate spring migration. It corresponds with significant snow melt — commonly in April and May. Bulls, yearlings and dry cows follow weeks later. Pregnant cows (who move north before the flush of early spring forage) are in constant energy deficit during this period, traveling an average of 20km per day. Deep snow, early breakup, and spring floods are just some of the factors that can delay this tough stage of the Caribou Herd's annual journey.

An average of 25% of the calves get killed by golden eagles, grizzly bears, sudden storms, and accidents in their first month of life.

So no, still not a caribou expert, but with the slightest effort, I know way more than you.

litesong wrote:

spot wrote: Notice I don't defend litesong because I know he is a nut...

Spot... not a nut. I am here for a completely different reason than you. I found (on other websites, of which I see much commonality to this site) a large percentage of AGW deniers to also be uneducated & racist, even with the ability to be threateners. I have had my wife threatened & I have been threatened. If I were to publish here the threats I have had made against my wife & me on other sites, you would know why I am so adamantly opposed to AGW denier liar whiners, not only for their anti-AGW views, but their acceptance of inhuman philosophies to hammer their way thru humanity.
I also believe you accept AGW denier liar whiner contentions that I am uneducated. I need NOT prove myself to the ilk of AGW denier liar whiners. But to a much lesser extent, I need NOT prove myself to you. Saying that then, I do have a re-construction of the accepted form of the one of the Galaxy Superclusters. I do support your activities here, even tho you have never acknowledged me.... to my knowledge.

One finality.... some AGW denier liar whiners, who do have pukey proud pig racist philosophy, would kill those who oppose them.... specially people they consider to be of non-white races. The threats my wife & I have endured are the VERY PROOF of the inhumanity of large numbers of AGW denier liar whiners.

spot wrote:

litesong wrote:

spot wrote: Notice I don't defend litesong because I know he is a nut...

Spot... not a nut. I am here for a completely different reason than you. I found (on other websites, of which I see much commonality to this site) a large percentage of AGW deniers to also be uneducated & racist, even with the ability to be threateners. I have had my wife threatened & I have been threatened. If I were to publish here the threats I have had made against my wife & me on other sites, you would know why I am so adamantly opposed to AGW denier liar whiners, not only for their anti-AGW views, but their acceptance of inhuman philosophies to hammer their way thru humanity.
I also believe you accept AGW denier liar whiner contentions that I am uneducated. I need NOT prove myself to the ilk of AGW denier liar whiners. But to a much lesser extent, I need NOT prove myself to you. Saying that then, I do have a re-construction of the accepted form of the one of the Galaxy Superclusters. I do support your activities here, even tho you have never acknowledged me.... to my knowledge.

One finality.... some AGW denier liar whiners, who do have pukey proud pig racist philosophy, would kill those who oppose them.... specially people they consider to be of non-white races. The threats my wife & I have endured are the VERY PROOF of the inhumanity of large numbers of AGW denier liar whiners.

Sure but the phrase: "AGW denier liar whiners" seems Juvenal

Again that explains what all those the polar bears are doing in the tropics. Applied "common sense" trumps observation, who knew?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Again that explains what all those the polar bears are doing in the tropics. Applied "common sense" trumps observation, who knew?

I don't believe I typed the word polar bear until now. That was you. But since you mention it, how does a Polar bear survive in the zoo?? Hint-it is not -30 or -60 at the zoo.

Side note- they can swim 60 miles (nearly 100KM) without rest. So don't bother posting up a picture of a polar bear "stranded" on a chunk of ice.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed:...animals don't have the ability to reason.

litesong wrote:I think "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no sigh-ants mann" agrees with me. Tho NOT about my accuracy.... or maybe it agrees even with my contention of accuracy. At the least, it understands my artistry.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whinerd gaslighter" gushed:... many species, including hummingbirds, can withstand freezing temperatures as long as an adequate supply of food is available.

Wake wrote: Everything that has an energy balance IS considered to be a blackbody. Because it is more complex than that doesn't make it untrue.

GasGuzzler wrote:
It's all about the food, and no animal's survival has been challenged by any recent global warming.

Birds migrate to move from areas of low or decreasing resources to areas of high or increasing resources. The two primary resources being sought are food and nesting locations.

Birds that nest in the Northern Hemisphere tend to migrate northward in the spring to take advantage of burgeoning insect populations, budding plants and an abundance of nesting locations. As winter approaches and the availability of insects and other food drops, the birds move south again. Escaping the cold is a motivating factor but many species, including hummingbirds, can withstand freezing temperatures as long as an adequate supply of food is available.

IBdaMann wrote:

All matter radiates, per Planck's, which is the absolute authority on the exact energy level of a given photon of a given wavelength emitted by a molecule at a given temperature. Warmizombies hate this because it makes it clear that every single molecule has a temperature, and this runs counter to the Wikipedia notion that "temperature" only applies to volumes of multiple molecules.

From Planck's we derive Stefan-Boltzmann which integrates energy radiation across all wavelengths to tell us the radiance of a body at a particular temperature. Warmizombies hate this because Stefan-Boltzmann explains how radiance moves in the same direction as temperature and that kills the "greenhouse effect" notion that temperature somehow increases because radiance decreases due to "heat trapping."

The problem in all this is actually a non-problem. Scientifically illiterate warmizombies need to discount science of thermal radiation just because it flat out kills "greenhouse effect" ...

... plus the science itself is beyond their grasp so they resort to quibbling over terms and just flat out denying that science applies where Global Warming is concerned.

Some common confusion points that are exploited by warmizombies:

What is a "body"? In physics, the term is kept general so as to include planets which include atmospheres and hydrospheres. It could refer to an object like a Styrofoam cup, a marble or a steel beam, for example. It could be a single molecule, either of a solid, liquid or a gas. However warmizombies try to further subdivide "body" so as to create nonexistent forces, to separate planets from their atmospheres and hydrospheres, so as to attempt to revise science to exactly align with WACKY religious Global Warming dogma. Unfortunately for them, bodies are not further subdivided.

A preferred warmizombie denial is the emissivity constant. All bodies in nature have an emissivity constant 0 < Emissivity < 1. Emissivities of exactly 0 and 1 do not occur in nature. So what do we call theoretical bodies of Emissivity = 1? The standard physics term is "an ideal black body" while referring to all other bodies in nature as just "black bodies" (the word "black" referring to the fact that they are absorbing and emitting at least some energy). Among some of the mistaken, it has become popular to refer to a body of Emissivity = 1 as a "black body" and to bodies of Emissivity < 1 as "grey bodies." This causes a problem when two people are discussing "black bodies" and one person means one thing and another person means something else.

So we have the statement above that anything in thermal equilibrium is a body. This is technically not correct just because a "body" has to be a single identifiable thing. At any given moment there are unidentifiable shapes in the atmosphere that are at thermal equilibrium ... for only but a brief moment ... but since it is not an identifiable thing we can't really refer to it as a body. Normally a "body" involves some solid matter, but a gas giant planet could still be a body just by being a single identifiable thing.

... just define up front whether you want to call it a black body or a grey body.
.

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

All matter radiates, per Planck's, which is the absolute authority on the exact energy level of a given photon of a given wavelength emitted by a molecule at a given temperature. Warmizombies hate this because it makes it clear that every single molecule has a temperature, and this runs counter to the Wikipedia notion that "temperature" only applies to volumes of multiple molecules.

From Planck's we derive Stefan-Boltzmann which integrates energy radiation across all wavelengths to tell us the radiance of a body at a particular temperature. Warmizombies hate this because Stefan-Boltzmann explains how radiance moves in the same direction as temperature and that kills the "greenhouse effect" notion that temperature somehow increases because radiance decreases due to "heat trapping."

The problem in all this is actually a non-problem. Scientifically illiterate warmizombies need to discount science of thermal radiation just because it flat out kills "greenhouse effect" ...

... plus the science itself is beyond their grasp so they resort to quibbling over terms and just flat out denying that science applies where Global Warming is concerned.

Some common confusion points that are exploited by warmizombies:

What is a "body"? In physics, the term is kept general so as to include planets which include atmospheres and hydrospheres. It could refer to an object like a Styrofoam cup, a marble or a steel beam, for example. It could be a single molecule, either of a solid, liquid or a gas. However warmizombies try to further subdivide "body" so as to create nonexistent forces, to separate planets from their atmospheres and hydrospheres, so as to attempt to revise science to exactly align with WACKY religious Global Warming dogma. Unfortunately for them, bodies are not further subdivided.

A preferred warmizombie denial is the emissivity constant. All bodies in nature have an emissivity constant 0 < Emissivity < 1. Emissivities of exactly 0 and 1 do not occur in nature. So what do we call theoretical bodies of Emissivity = 1? The standard physics term is "an ideal black body" while referring to all other bodies in nature as just "black bodies" (the word "black" referring to the fact that they are absorbing and emitting at least some energy). Among some of the mistaken, it has become popular to refer to a body of Emissivity = 1 as a "black body" and to bodies of Emissivity < 1 as "grey bodies." This causes a problem when two people are discussing "black bodies" and one person means one thing and another person means something else.

So we have the statement above that anything in thermal equilibrium is a body. This is technically not correct just because a "body" has to be a single identifiable thing. At any given moment there are unidentifiable shapes in the atmosphere that are at thermal equilibrium ... for only but a brief moment ... but since it is not an identifiable thing we can't really refer to it as a body. Normally a "body" involves some solid matter, but a gas giant planet could still be a body just by being a single identifiable thing.

... just define up front whether you want to call it a black body or a grey body.
.

The complexity I was speaking of is part of this: When the Sun's energy strikes the Earth unlike an ideal black body, it can and does absorb and store energy that is never emitted. Coal is SURPRISE one development of that. As are all other fossil fuels.

And I'm still waiting for Surface Detail to figure out how and why tree rings could demonstrate atmospheric levels of CO2.

he is wrong because he has convinced himself of some fundamental assumptions that are wrong.

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

The complexity I was speaking of is part of this: When the Sun's energy strikes the Earth unlike an ideal black body, it can and does absorb and store energy that is never emitted. Coal is SURPRISE one development of that. As are all other fossil fuels.

And I'm still waiting for Surface Detail to figure out how and why tree rings could demonstrate atmospheric levels of CO2.

You think I am saying everything is a blackbody and you are rude to me, Ibdaman says that and you think it is complex and I can't possibly understand what he is talking about. Do you even understand what he is saying?

The short answer is no matter how long he spends typing out his diatribes he is wrong because he has convinced himself of some fundamental assumptions that are wrong.

And a tree ring tells you what happened to a tree in that year, a lot of tree rings in a lot of locations tells you what happens to a lot of trees, if you know what conditions affect a tree you can tell things about past conditions.

But that bothers and you think it goes against your politics you so you have to be rude to people about it.

spot wrote:
You are an expert on tree rings now? I am not interested in your musings on the subject I can just look it up.

Anyway How can a individual molecule be a black body as far as I am aware this is a novel concept. This should be interesting and you obviously have a lot of time on your hands so tell me.

spot wrote:
I already know that you are wrong about tree rings if i looked it up I would know the details of why your wrong.

An individual gas molecule can have a blackbody like profile? can you provide an example?

spot wrote:
What? I know your wrong because they don't show CO2 levels in the past, you said they were. however I know different methods are used for determining that.

I know that, perhaps you should enroll in a course to get the necessary credentials .

Tell me; what credentials do I need to know whether a gas is a blackbody or not?

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf
Over and over again you simply write with you(sic) mind tightly shut.

spot wrote:I willing to change my mind in the face of evidence ...

GasGuzzler wrote:

he is wrong because he has convinced himself of some fundamental assumptions that are wrong.

Ya mean like AGW (All Generic Wisdom)

Wake wrote:
To put this into perspective the latest issue of Smithsonian Magazine has an article from a rather too famous Dr. Thomas McGovern that discusses Greenland and how conditions NOW are not as warm as they were when the Viking Settlements on Greenland were supporting some 2,500 people.

Wake wrote:
Greenland is not capable of supporting a portion of that presently without heavy outside support.

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:
To put this into perspective the latest issue of Smithsonian Magazine has an article from a rather too famous Dr. Thomas McGovern that discusses Greenland and how conditions NOW are not as warm as they were when the Viking Settlements on Greenland were supporting some 2,500 people.

Huh? The article didn't say that at all. You're just making shit up.

Wake wrote:
Greenland is not capable of supporting a portion of that presently without heavy outside support.

From the article "For all their intrepidness, though, the Norse were far from self-sufficient, and imported grains, iron, wine and other essentials. Ivory was their currency. "Norse society in Greenland couldn't survive without trade with Europe," says Arneborg, "and that's from day one.""


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/#XcE9iIH5SXOXtidJ.99

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:
To put this into perspective the latest issue of Smithsonian Magazine has an article from a rather too famous Dr. Thomas McGovern that discusses Greenland and how conditions NOW are not as warm as they were when the Viking Settlements on Greenland were supporting some 2,500 people.

Huh? The article didn't say that at all. You're just making shit up.

Wake wrote:
Greenland is not capable of supporting a portion of that presently without heavy outside support.

From the article "For all their intrepidness, though, the Norse were far from self-sufficient, and imported grains, iron, wine and other essentials. Ivory was their currency. "Norse society in Greenland couldn't survive without trade with Europe," says Arneborg, "and that's from day one.""


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/#XcE9iIH5SXOXtidJ.99

We have a difference of opinion about what he was talking about when he said that conditions were mild and farming etc. was possible.

Then conditions turned bad from what he thinks was the Volcanic eruption in Indonesia but others think considerably different. Though there are MARKS of the eruption along that timeline they are hardly widespread or extreme enough to have the effects of causing the Maunder Minimum. Remember that slightly after that we also had the Dalton minimum which was another extreme cold spell though not like the Little Ice Age.

The article has PICTURES of conditions there now. The same two sites that are presently clear are not possibly able to support 2500 people let alone the 5000 cited by other sources.

Hence my statement that conditions today aren't as warm as they were in the Medieval Warm Period.

Think about what is said - they imported grains (generally a necessity) and IRON - think about that. There are NO WOODLANDS on Greenland today. What would you use iron for save to connect wood. Greenland has been essentially uninhabited for 500 years and in ANY decent conditions woods would have returned. So conditions there HAD to have been quite a bit better. That means if they "imported iron" it was in the manner of hammers and knives only. So they sure as hell weren't importing enough of it to be essential but more a comfort item like wine.

Also obviously they had boats capable of considerable sea travel in unfriendly waters (as a yachtsman I can tell you that you wouldn't want to be out on that ocean even on the most well equipped modern sailing yacht of a size they would have been capable of handling). Going to Iceland would have been a beat - into the wind. A long and very difficult journey for the sort of sailing rigs they had.

Perhaps you are trying to go from a single article instead of research into the many papers about Greenland that have been published. There have been quite a few and if you read them you discover a great deal of disagreement.

"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk. "Potatoes have most benefited. Also, cabbage has been very successful."

Sten Erik Langstrup Pedersen, who runs an organic farm in a fjord near Nuuk, first grew potatoes in 1976. Now he can plant crops two weeks earlier in May and harvest three weeks later in October compared with more than a decade ago.

He grows 23 kinds of vegetables, compared with 15 a decade ago, including beans, peas, herbs and strawberries. He says he has sold some strawberries to top restaurants in Copenhagen.