|Mt. Everest, should it be used as an example?08-07-2019 17:52|
|Is Mt. Everest a good illustration of human caused global warming?|
Mt. Everest continues to grow as man-made climate change forces Asia to collide with India. Trump made it famous by comparing his desired wall to it. It is estimated that industrial CO2 emissions are causing Mt. Everest to grow between three and five millimeters per year.
I saw news segments showing how it had grown so tall that people actually want to climb it, and I wanted to understand how this could happen.
On the top is Mt. Everest as it appeared in 1920 compared with how it appears today in the bottom picture. "Natural geological forces" don't even come close to explaining all this.
My crude understanding is that we have human caused global warming stacked onto natural warming, just by chance and bad luck. So from 1850 to 1938 you essentially just have the impact of natural warming? Is it the case that Mt Everest would be growing today anyway but more slowly?
Am I wrong in assuming that human caused global warming was not significant prior to 1938?
Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
|WTF? I have trouble converting british to normal units... but 3-5 mm seems kind of tiny. How exactly do they measure the world's tallest peak, down to millimeters? I figured there would a tolerance of a few feet. Surprised there isn't much snow on top, guess its just too tall, or it's closer to the sun, so melts real fast. Wonder if Al Gore has been up there to investigate. Something must be going on, there has been a higher than average climber death rate this year. I'm sure it's still quite a hike, but they turned it into a tourist attraction a long time ago. You don't have to haul your own food, equipment, or supplies. They have camps built along the way, where you can stop and rest, decide if you want to continue up, or be taken back down. It's still a long walk, lot of work, and dangerous, just simpler, little skill involved. James could probably do it, except for his mystery disability.|
|Into the Night★★★★★
|It's about 1/7th of an inch.|
tmiddles wrote:If you tell someone their science is wrong back it up with better science.
This is a stupid assertion. First, there is no such thing as quality of science. Science is not subjective. There is no such thing as science that is better than other science.
Second, if your "science" is erroneous and thus, not science then nothing else needs to be presented that is better. If you're wrong, you're wrong.
tmiddles wrote: So question: Do you think it's possible for humans to do serious damage to their environment?
Stop changing the subject. The topic is not any particular environment. The topic is the Global Climate and your definition of that.
Stay on topic. What is the definition of "The Climate"?
tmiddles wrote:All the more reason to bring sanity and sound thinking to the issue.
Exactly. Define the global Climate.
tmiddles wrote:Not simply dismiss the topic because morons showed up. And I would agree I've never seen more stupidity than on this subject.
Exactly. Imagine morons showing up to blather about Climate Change without ever even attempting to define Climate. I've never seen more stupidity and dishonesty ... and scientific illiteracy than on this subject.
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:
So I know where to start, how far did you get in math?
tmiddles wrote:But it's a sound hypothesis with a very serious risk identified.
Who declared it to be a "sound" hypothesis? Surely not the scientific method. In fact, logically it is nothing more than an invalid argument.
(You don't know what I'm talking about, do you?)
As far as an identified "risk" ... anyone can be a delusional panic-stricken doomsday whiner claiming that we're all gonna die. In those cases it is summarily dismissed, not "factored into the equation."
|Mount Everest glaciers are melting. And it's exposing the bodies of dead climbers||8||24-03-2019 02:07|