Polar Ice Melt Now 6 Times Greater Than 1990s

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

In recent years, the winter ice extent has been getting larger. That's more ice, not less.

Over the past 30 years the satellite data indicates the surface area of Arctic ice has diminished.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But I think you are correct that the winters have been seeing greater freezes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Seems to me this is another indication that the summers are getting hotter in the Arctic. More evaporation. Causes cooling.

Spongy Iris wrote:

duncan61 wrote:

Then there is no problem.All 13 families of polar bear are thriving and seals killer whales and krill.Mackerel species and cod are now moving further North than before.Its all good news yet some people claim its bad.Go there and talk to the eskimos or the people growing crops in the north.Canadian wheat crops are now 48% greater than the 70s.Some is due to better techniques but the bulk is longer season and more land available.In Perth where I live completely opposite the North pole the winters are getting longer and colder.We are over a month into spring and it is cold and wet.The Earth is spinning.We orbit the sun Its spinning.Everything is spinning.The equator was once frozen in.why are some idiots trying to blame mankind.Have a good long look at some photos from space and tell me we can change the Ocean.I will finish with If I had school age children and found out that AGW/CC was being taught at school I would remove my child from that class.Duncan the realist

Fish moving further north is another indication that the waters have warmed.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Was the sun not around yet when the equator was frozen?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Seems like you believe some pretty wild stuff.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Amazing how a solar eclipse works with the sun and moon being so far from each other and so different in size.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I guess it's hard to believe the people who said they landed on the moon by shooting a really big cannon at the sky.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Therein lies the problem.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: The video is a lie. It is a composite of ice extent taken from a winter to a summer and shown as progressive winter ice extent.

SI: Ok. So you agree it shows how much surface area ice has been melting over 30 years, during the season when ice melts, but not during the season when ice doesn't melt.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Nope. It's an indication that their food source is better further north. Fish really don't care about a few degrees of temperature."
SI: Warmer temperatures prevent water from mixing,

Spongy Iris wrote:
allowing algae to grow thicker and faster.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There is your initial food source.

Spongy Iris wrote:
From there it's a food chain reaction. This is yet another example of ITN skipping over the root cause of an effect.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It's like he or she thinks the food source just pops up out of nowhere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Shut your eyes. They prevent you from seeing the Sun, yet your eyelids are a lot smaller than the Sun. Someday you'll learn how a shadow works. You might play around with a flashlight and a globe in a dark room to figure this OUT.

SI: Completely inaccurate and moronic comparison. Are you joking? Shutting your eyes will block everything from view. The moon perfectly blocks just the sun disc from view in a solar eclipse.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Paradox. Which is it, dude? Hotter is cooler???? You have said that less sea ice is why there is more sea ICE.

SI: I have considered that warmer summers in the Arctic leads to greater melting and evaporation and this may be a factor leading to greater cooling in the winter.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Why do you consider 30 years and now as significant points of comparison? Why not any other two points? Why are they NOT significant?

SI: 30 years is a considerable amount of time to observe if there significant change.

Spongy Iris wrote:
30 years is not necessarily significant.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It is the diminishing ice surface area over this considerable time that is significant and warrants an explanation

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: We used a rocket instead.

SI: Gee thanks for the clarification. I was making a reference to Newton's cannonball thought experiment as a joke Did you know, if you fire a rocket at the sky, and shut off the engines when you reach the speed of around 25,000 mph, you will just keep falling until you land on the moon?

Into the Night wrote:

No. Do not put words in my mouth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Nope. It's an indication that their food source is better further north. Fish really don't care about a few degrees of temperature."

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

No. Do not put words in my mouth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Nope. It's an indication that their food source is better further north. Fish really don't care about a few degrees of temperature."

And you guys just happened to bring up my favourite topic of discussion, ozone depletion. This harms phytoplankton first and foremost. Basically it is what fish care about.
My question is if you guys are this stupid. Phytoplankton is the basis of marine life. It's like if there was no corn in Iowa, what would Iowa be? A chicken farm? Can I be this cruel to GasGuzzler and ignore how Iowa is a leader in education for wind turbines? I need to ignore this last part about Iowa and clean energy technology. My bad.
As much as I hate to say this, phytoplankton prefer cold water. Could be why the Grand Banks is one of the richest fishing areas in the world. It's fed by the cold, arctic waters of the Labrador Current which comes directly from the Arctic (choking on this) Ocean (it's actually a sea).
And that supports a null hypothesis according to logic that cold arctic waters encourage phytoplankton while warmer, tropical waters off of Florida which is poor in marine life is poor in marine life. (Thank You Harvey).
What I want to know is how you guys don't know this. You're Americans, right? You're forgiven. As Jesus said, forgive them for they do not know that they are stupid. Amen.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+.

You were coddled.


.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: No. Do not put words in my mouth. What warmer temperatures?

The temperatures in the Arctic, which I'm pretty sure have warmed over the past 30 years, as you can see, by looking at relevant satellite data, depicting diminishing sea ice, over 30 seasons.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: No, this is another example of a redirection fallacy and a compositional error fallacy.

SI: I'm trying to point out, if fish are moving further north, as duncan said, and it is due to them finding more food there, as you said, it could indicate waters are getting warmer in the far north. Maybe even near Norway!

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Special pleading fallacy. Also wrong. The Moon doesn't perfectly block the Sun on each eclipse.

SI: What is a special pleading fallacy??? The disc of the moon exactly lines up with the disc of the sun in a total eclipse. In an annular eclipse the moon appears just slightly smaller. Solar eclipses are fairly numerous, about 2 to 4 per year, but the area on the ground covered by totality is only about 50 miles wide.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: You can't decrease entropy in any system. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

SI: "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time, and is constant if and only if all processes are reversible." All processes have not been reversed. More CO2 has been added to the system.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Circular definition fallacy. Answer the question put to you. You just said it was. You are now locked in paradox. Which is it, dude? You are being irrational. Irrational. You can't argue both sides of a paradox.

SI: Dude you sound like a broken bot.

Spongy Iris wrote:
If the ice melted and froze every year into a different shaped blob in the sea, but the total size of the surface area was pretty consistent over 30 years of observation, then you could say the data is random.

Spongy Iris wrote:
If 40% of the ice observed at the surface area diminishes in 30 years, you can conclude there has been a significant change which has occurred in the system.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Irrelevance fallacy.

SI: It is relevant because Earth is like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like. But you can never leave.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: No argument presented. Irrelevance. Paradox. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Redirections.

SI: THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE DOING!!

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

No. Do not put words in my mouth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Nope. It's an indication that their food source is better further north. Fish really don't care about a few degrees of temperature."

And you guys just happened to bring up my favourite topic of discussion, ozone depletion. This harms phytoplankton first and foremost. Basically it is what fish care about.
My question is if you guys are this stupid. Phytoplankton is the basis of marine life. It's like if there was no corn in Iowa, what would Iowa be? A chicken farm? Can I be this cruel to GasGuzzler and ignore how Iowa is a leader in education for wind turbines? I need to ignore this last part about Iowa and clean energy technology. My bad.
As much as I hate to say this, phytoplankton prefer cold water. Could be why the Grand Banks is one of the richest fishing areas in the world. It's fed by the cold, arctic waters of the Labrador Current which comes directly from the Arctic (choking on this) Ocean (it's actually a sea).
And that supports a null hypothesis according to logic that cold arctic waters encourage phytoplankton while warmer, tropical waters off of Florida which is poor in marine life is poor in marine life. (Thank You Harvey).
What I want to know is how you guys don't know this. You're Americans, right? You're forgiven. As Jesus said, forgive them for they do not know that they are stupid. Amen.

sclark1000 wrote:
What if:
1) For a period of years the summers are so warm that no ice, and hence no bubble CO2, is accumulated? How would any ice core study reveal the missing years, how many years, how much CO2 was not accumulated, etc., etc.?
2) Longer sub arctic summers mean more tree growth and, hence, more CO2 absorption. Where does this affect show up in the arguments, pro or con?
3) Ditto re: the growth of single-celled organisms in the arctic and sub-arctic zones, and their affects on CO2 absorption, particularly the phytoplankton?
4) Warmer atmospheric temperatures mean more evaporated water, more clouds, more rain, increased albedo, etc., etc.

When will there be some recognition of the fact that the world has been emerging from the last ice age over the past 15-20k years, ie: is climate change more than just a political rallying issue, is it something that exists only because we just woke up to it, is it a phenomenon that humans can do anything to reverse, or even just slow down?

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

No. Do not put words in my mouth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Nope. It's an indication that their food source is better further north. Fish really don't care about a few degrees of temperature."

And you guys just happened to bring up my favourite topic of discussion, ozone depletion. This harms phytoplankton first and foremost. Basically it is what fish care about.
My question is if you guys are this stupid. Phytoplankton is the basis of marine life. It's like if there was no corn in Iowa, what would Iowa be? A chicken farm? Can I be this cruel to GasGuzzler and ignore how Iowa is a leader in education for wind turbines? I need to ignore this last part about Iowa and clean energy technology. My bad.
As much as I hate to say this, phytoplankton prefer cold water. Could be why the Grand Banks is one of the richest fishing areas in the world. It's fed by the cold, arctic waters of the Labrador Current which comes directly from the Arctic (choking on this) Ocean (it's actually a sea).
And that supports a null hypothesis according to logic that cold arctic waters encourage phytoplankton while warmer, tropical waters off of Florida which is poor in marine life is poor in marine life. (Thank You Harvey).
What I want to know is how you guys don't know this. You're Americans, right? You're forgiven. As Jesus said, forgive them for they do not know that they are stupid. Amen.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Parrot Killer,

1)

"Satellite-mounted, microwave radiometers, are an ideal tool for the estimating sea ice extent because they can see through cloud cover, and they have frequent, global coverage. A passive microwave instrument detects objects through emitted radiation since different substance have different emission spectra."

If you don't want to accept the sea ice estimates from satellites here is another study:

Spongy Iris wrote:
"A study of data collected on submarine cruises shows that mean ice draft (thickness from the Arctic ocean surface to the bottom of the ice pack) for 29 stations decreased by 1.3 meters compared to 20 to 40 years ago, representing a 40% reduction in ice volume (Rothrock et al., 1999)."

Spongy Iris wrote:
And another one:

"recent warming

Spongy Iris wrote:
has been accompanied by decreases in the extent and thickness of sea ice,

Spongy Iris wrote:
increases in borehole temperatures in permafrost and permafrost thawing,

Spongy Iris wrote:
and later freeze-up and earlier break-up dates for river and lake ice.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Permafrost warming has been reported in Russia, China, Alaska, and western Canada (Osterkamp et al., 1998).

Spongy Iris wrote:
Where the permafrost has a high ice content, extensive thaw has resulted in ground settlement of as much as 5 to 10 meters -- damaging houses, roads, airports, and pipelines."

Spongy Iris wrote:
Evidence is substantial the Arctic is warming.

Spongy Iris wrote:
2)

If my hands are cold, I put on gloves, and my hands warm up. I have not added any energy to my body by just putting on gloves. I use the gloves to shield my hands from cold air, and to trap energy and keep them warm.

Spongy Iris wrote:
If the cloud cover of a frigid climate increases, wouldn't the same effect be observed?
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
3)

Since you so often state the 2nd law of thermodynamics you must mean Earth is in a closed system.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Is this your confirmation, CO2 can't escape the atmosphere if it doesn't get absorbed by plants, seas, or rocks?

sclark1000 wrote:
What if:
1) For a period of years the summers are so warm that no ice, and hence no bubble CO2, is accumulated? How would any ice core study reveal the missing years, how many years, how much CO2 was not accumulated, etc., etc.?
2) Longer sub arctic summers mean more tree growth and, hence, more CO2 absorption. Where does this affect show up in the arguments, pro or con?
3) Ditto re: the growth of single-celled organisms in the arctic and sub-arctic zones, and their affects on CO2 absorption, particularly the phytoplankton?
4) Warmer atmospheric temperatures mean more evaporated water, more clouds, more rain, increased albedo, etc., etc.

When will there be some recognition of the fact that the world has been emerging from the last ice age over the past 15-20k years, ie: is climate change more than just a political rallying issue, is it something that exists only because we just woke up to it, is it a phenomenon that humans can do anything to reverse, or even just slow down?

Spongy Iris wrote:

sclark1000 wrote:
What if:
1) For a period of years the summers are so warm that no ice, and hence no bubble CO2, is accumulated? How would any ice core study reveal the missing years, how many years, how much CO2 was not accumulated, etc., etc.?
2) Longer sub arctic summers mean more tree growth and, hence, more CO2 absorption. Where does this affect show up in the arguments, pro or con?
3) Ditto re: the growth of single-celled organisms in the arctic and sub-arctic zones, and their affects on CO2 absorption, particularly the phytoplankton?
4) Warmer atmospheric temperatures mean more evaporated water, more clouds, more rain, increased albedo, etc., etc.

When will there be some recognition of the fact that the world has been emerging from the last ice age over the past 15-20k years, ie: is climate change more than just a political rallying issue, is it something that exists only because we just woke up to it, is it a phenomenon that humans can do anything to reverse, or even just slow down?

Not sure what level of CO2 in the atmosphere puts earth at higher risk.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I believe the Lybian glass fields are ancient evidence of the risk associated with excessive CO2 build up around
Mount Uwaynat (Gabal El Uweinat) mountain range where elevations reach higher than 6,000 feet.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There does seem to be many benefits of more melted sea ice at the north pole.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I never much consider evidence of ancient ice ages. Earlier duncan61 said the equator was once frozen. Don't know how that happened with the sun being where it is.

duncan61 wrote: ITN the whole Earth was a big frozen blob at some time in our distant past.

duncan61 wrote: I also disagree with your stance on no gas can warm the Earth.

duncan61 wrote: CO2 can radiate IR light but the amount claimed is wrong.

duncan61 wrote:
ITN the whole Earth was a big frozen blob at some time in our distant past.

duncan61 wrote:
I also disagree with your stance on no gas can warm the Earth.

duncan61 wrote:
CO2 can radiate IR light but the amount claimed is wrong.

duncan61 wrote:
It needs 3 zeros added before the decimal point the effect is minimal at best.

duncan61 wrote:
If the atmosphere was 25% CO2 it would be much warmer.

duncan61 wrote:
The first atmospheric measurements were taken at Mauna loa in 1955 and it was 280ppm now it is 380ppm.

duncan61 wrote:
I tested yesterday to show some people and it was 384ppm and varying around plus minus 10ppm in other words F all.

duncan61 wrote:
The people who choose to believe we are all going to fry wish to believe regardless of the truth.The 1930s were warmer than now

duncan61 wrote:
because you can compar all the recordings made but as you are very aware at no point can we take a snapshot and say it is 15.87 C average on the planet.

duncan61 wrote:
What is with James and his obsession with Ozone depletion.

duncan61 wrote:
All that mythical crap went away years ago after Julian lennon wrote a song about the hole in the sky.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The ozone hole was never a problem, and really hasn't changed all that much, since being discovered. When they started launching satellites in the '70s, that could observe and measure, they immediately declared it a crisis, that need to be fixed, or we are all going to die, horribly. The ozone hole has been expanding and contracting, sort of like polar ice melting, and reforming. Global warming is the same way, something we can't directly observe or measure, and yet it's being sold as the end of the world, if we don't fix it. All we really have, is a few numbers, run through a computer, manipulated it creative ways, to show there is a major problem. Of course, it's never been a problem, we have no real world way to determine if it even exists. We have no way to determine the actual cause, if any. And, we don't actually know we could possibly have any control over it. What we do know, is that we do a bunch of crazy, panicky crap, that doesn't amount to anything, we waste a lot of time and resourses, do a lot more harm, than expected from the phantom problem.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The ozone hole was never a problem, and really hasn't changed all that much, since being discovered. When they started launching satellites in the '70s, that could observe and measure, they immediately declared it a crisis, that need to be fixed, or we are all going to die, horribly. The ozone hole has been expanding and contracting, sort of like polar ice melting, and reforming. Global warming is the same way, something we can't directly observe or measure, and yet it's being sold as the end of the world, if we don't fix it. All we really have, is a few numbers, run through a computer, manipulated it creative ways, to show there is a major problem. Of course, it's never been a problem, we have no real world way to determine if it even exists. We have no way to determine the actual cause, if any. And, we don't actually know we could possibly have any control over it. What we do know, is that we do a bunch of crazy, panicky crap, that doesn't amount to anything, we waste a lot of time and resourses, do a lot more harm, than expected from the phantom problem.

The ozone is created by the sun and ozone reverts back to O2 at night. At the poles, it is nighttime for months at a time (winter). This has the effect of greatly reduced, i.e. "depleted" ozone over the winter poles. Since there is no sun from which ozone protection is needed at the winter pole, the ozone "hole" or "depletion" is not an issue whatsoever.


.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The ozone hole was never a problem, and really hasn't changed all that much, since being discovered. When they started launching satellites in the '70s, that could observe and measure, they immediately declared it a crisis, that need to be fixed, or we are all going to die, horribly. The ozone hole has been expanding and contracting, sort of like polar ice melting, and reforming. Global warming is the same way, something we can't directly observe or measure, and yet it's being sold as the end of the world, if we don't fix it. All we really have, is a few numbers, run through a computer, manipulated it creative ways, to show there is a major problem. Of course, it's never been a problem, we have no real world way to determine if it even exists. We have no way to determine the actual cause, if any. And, we don't actually know we could possibly have any control over it. What we do know, is that we do a bunch of crazy, panicky crap, that doesn't amount to anything, we waste a lot of time and resourses, do a lot more harm, than expected from the phantom problem.

The ozone is created by the sun and ozone reverts back to O2 at night. At the poles, it is nighttime for months at a time (winter). This has the effect of greatly reduced, i.e. "depleted" ozone over the winter poles. Since there is no sun from which ozone protection is needed at the winter pole, the ozone "hole" or "depletion" is not an issue whatsoever.


.

Exactly. As long as you have Sun and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

duncan61 wrote:
IBDM wrote That's your theory. That is your speculation about the past. What if I don't believe it?

The rift vally was created by glacier

duncan61 wrote:
and there are Arctic type sea life fossils in Kenya.

duncan61 wrote:
This is my theory most fossils are found in Kenya as it is on the coast for access and if you wish to go fossil hunting in the republic of congo you may never be seen again and who wants to go to chad or niger.

duncan61 wrote:
IBDM wrote Matter cannot spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. You can add all the matter (e.g. gas) you want and you can't increase temperature without additional energy.

Let me know if you need any aspect of this explained.

I do,My example is when I silver solder brass fitting to pipe on a building site I source a brick and stand all the pipe up and put the fittings on the brick.It all heats well and solders easy the flame from the bit I am welding preheats the next one.I busted my dad doing it once and he had the fittings in a small puddle and he was moaning it was not getting hot but all the water was boiling up.Same amount of energy different result.I also did a jewellry course with my wife and during the course I was trying to solder a silver ring and could not get the heat in to it in a clamp.The instructor took it out and put it on a block and hey presto the work became hot enough for me to repair the band.So different enviroments greatly affect the temperature.I have done hearth brazing where the work is pinned then placed in a bed of coke and heated with bellows then the lugs are bronzed welded on

duncan61 wrote:
I am sure the current atmosphere stops us burning up in the day and not freezing at night

duncan61 wrote:
so if the composition of the atmosphere changes things change.

duncan61 wrote:
It is the amount I have issue with I would like the warmazombies to measure out a metre on a board then graduate it in to increments of a millimetre then mark out millimetres to a thousand then colour in 280 of the suckers then 400 and have a real look at the infinitesimal small difference they are all getting fooled with.I have used the glass of wine analogy in the olympic pool a few times recently.It gets people thinking rather than being brain washed by the media

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The ozone hole was never a problem, and really hasn't changed all that much, since being discovered. When they started launching satellites in the '70s, that could observe and measure, they immediately declared it a crisis, that need to be fixed, or we are all going to die, horribly. The ozone hole has been expanding and contracting, sort of like polar ice melting, and reforming. Global warming is the same way, something we can't directly observe or measure, and yet it's being sold as the end of the world, if we don't fix it. All we really have, is a few numbers, run through a computer, manipulated it creative ways, to show there is a major problem. Of course, it's never been a problem, we have no real world way to determine if it even exists. We have no way to determine the actual cause, if any. And, we don't actually know we could possibly have any control over it. What we do know, is that we do a bunch of crazy, panicky crap, that doesn't amount to anything, we waste a lot of time and resourses, do a lot more harm, than expected from the phantom problem.

The ozone is created by the sun and ozone reverts back to O2 at night. At the poles, it is nighttime for months at a time (winter). This has the effect of greatly reduced, i.e. "depleted" ozone over the winter poles. Since there is no sun from which ozone protection is needed at the winter pole, the ozone "hole" or "depletion" is not an issue whatsoever.


.

Exactly. As long as you have Sun and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

And yet when Australia had all of those fires, it proved you wrong.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN,

Who said CO2 is heating up the entire solar system???

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is basically what you are arguing by citing the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics incessantly.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It should be pretty obvious who is the one making irrelevant comments.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I'm just saying evidence is substantial ice levels in the Arctic have decreased significantly in the past few decades. Why do you think that is?

Spongy Iris wrote:
You know they never had solid proof connecting Ted Bundy to any murders. But the evidence was substantial enough to light his ass up.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Earth is not entirely a closed system.

Spongy Iris wrote:
People are born everyday.

Spongy Iris wrote:
You might want to consider it like a bicycle tire with air getting pumped into it.

Spongy Iris wrote:
One more thing, please tell me how gloves can warm my hands without violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN,

Who said CO2 is heating up the entire solar system???

No one.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is basically what you are arguing by citing the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics incessantly.

You are hallucinating. Put down the bong.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It should be pretty obvious who is the one making irrelevant comments.

You.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I'm just saying evidence is substantial ice levels in the Arctic have decreased significantly in the past few decades. Why do you think that is?

They aren't.

Spongy Iris wrote:
You know they never had solid proof connecting Ted Bundy to any murders. But the evidence was substantial enough to light his ass up.

Irrelevant.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Earth is not entirely a closed system.

Yes it is.

Spongy Iris wrote:
People are born everyday.

So?

Spongy Iris wrote:
You might want to consider it like a bicycle tire with air getting pumped into it.

So people are all aliens? I thought you said they were born here. Which is it, dude?

Spongy Iris wrote:
One more thing, please tell me how gloves can warm my hands without violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Already did. RQAA.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN,

Who said CO2 is heating up the entire solar system???

No one.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is basically what you are arguing by citing the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics incessantly.

You are hallucinating. Put down the bong.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It should be pretty obvious who is the one making irrelevant comments.

You.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I'm just saying evidence is substantial ice levels in the Arctic have decreased significantly in the past few decades. Why do you think that is?

They aren't.

Spongy Iris wrote:
You know they never had solid proof connecting Ted Bundy to any murders. But the evidence was substantial enough to light his ass up.

Irrelevant.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Earth is not entirely a closed system.

Yes it is.

Spongy Iris wrote:
People are born everyday.

So?

Spongy Iris wrote:
You might want to consider it like a bicycle tire with air getting pumped into it.

So people are all aliens? I thought you said they were born here. Which is it, dude?

Spongy Iris wrote:
One more thing, please tell me how gloves can warm my hands without violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Already did. RQAA.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN,

Who said CO2 is heating up the entire solar system???

No one.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is basically what you are arguing by citing the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics incessantly.

You are hallucinating. Put down the bong.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It should be pretty obvious who is the one making irrelevant comments.

You.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I'm just saying evidence is substantial ice levels in the Arctic have decreased significantly in the past few decades. Why do you think that is?

They aren't.

Spongy Iris wrote:
You know they never had solid proof connecting Ted Bundy to any murders. But the evidence was substantial enough to light his ass up.

Irrelevant.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Earth is not entirely a closed system.

Yes it is.

Spongy Iris wrote:
People are born everyday.

So?

Spongy Iris wrote:
You might want to consider it like a bicycle tire with air getting pumped into it.

So people are all aliens? I thought you said they were born here. Which is it, dude?

Spongy Iris wrote:
One more thing, please tell me how gloves can warm my hands without violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Already did. RQAA.

You're arguing that you can't add energy to a closed system.

Do you need me to spell out that people being born adds pressure to system when there was once none???