Remember me
▼ Content

Polar Ice Melt Now 6 Times Greater Than 1990s



Page 2 of 3<123>
01-10-2020 19:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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.

No, it hasn't. Why do you consider 30 years and now as significant points of comparison? Why not any other two points? Why are they NOT significant?
Spongy Iris wrote:
But I think you are correct that the winters have been seeing greater freezes.

A bit. Not a lot.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Seems to me this is another indication that the summers are getting hotter in the Arctic. More evaporation. Causes cooling.

Paradox. Which is it, dude? Hotter is cooler????


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
01-10-2020 19:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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.

Nope. It's an indication that their food source is better further north. Fish really don't care about a few degrees of temperature.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Was the sun not around yet when the equator was frozen?

How do you know the equator was frozen? Were you there?
Spongy Iris wrote:
Seems like you believe some pretty wild stuff.

No, that would be YOU. You believe the equator was frozen, as if you were there to see it. You have said that hotter is cooler. You have said that less sea ice is why there is more sea ice.

That's 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.

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.
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.

They didn't. That is a story of fiction. A cannon would've got the craft there alright, but the passengers inside would've been pulverized by the acceleration from the cannon, and the deceleration from hitting the Moon. The craft would've been mangled beyond recognition.

We used a rocket instead. The Saturn V rocket, and the lunar lander it carried (another rocket), allows for a soft lift off, and an soft landing on the Moon.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Therein lies the problem.

No problem. We decided to go the Moon, we built the craft to get us there, and we went to the Moon and came back. We went several times.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
01-10-2020 22:27
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(192)
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.

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, allowing algae to grow thicker and faster. There is your initial food source. From there it's a food chain reaction. This is yet another example of ITN skipping over the root cause of an effect. It's like he or she thinks the food source just pops up out of nowhere.

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.

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.

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. 30 years is not necessarily significant. It is the diminishing ice surface area over this considerable time that is significant and warrants an explanation

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?
02-10-2020 01:45
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
It is I who made the claim that the equator has been frozen in the past not the sponge.I am identifying that a lot of faith is put in NASA because of the lunar landings.I am sure NASA has a PR team 2 scenarios.The team go to ask for funding and declare the following
.We will never be able to colonize mars
.The planet is fine and going great
.Can we have 10 billion US for space exploration

scenario 2
.We are very close to being able to colonize Mars
.In 50 years the planet will be to hot to sustain life due to greenhouse gasses and mankind will go extinct
.Can we have 10 billion US dollars to keep going
02-10-2020 19:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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.

No. Do not put words in my mouth.
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,

What warmer temperatures? Mixing with what?
Spongy Iris wrote:
allowing algae to grow thicker and faster.

Algae doesn't need warmer temperatures.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There is your initial food source.

Redirection fallacy. Now you are no longer talking about fish. Few fish eat algae.
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.

No, this is another example of a redirection fallacy and a compositional error fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It's like he or she thinks the food source just pops up out of nowhere.

Most fish don't eat algae.
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.

Special pleading fallacy. Also wrong. The Moon doesn't perfectly block the Sun on each 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.

You can't decrease entropy in any system. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
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.

Circular definition fallacy. Answer the question put to you.
Spongy Iris wrote:
30 years is not necessarily significant.

You just said it was. You are now locked in paradox. Which is it, dude? You are being irrational.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It is the diminishing ice surface area over this considerable time that is significant and warrants an explanation

Irrational. You can't argue both sides of a paradox.
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?

Irrelevance fallacy.


No argument presented. Irrelevance. Paradox. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Redirections.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
03-10-2020 06:43
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(192)
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.

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!

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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

SI: THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE DOING!!
03-10-2020 07:24
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
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.

Edited on 03-10-2020 07:34
03-10-2020 07:38
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(192)
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.


Thanks wise guy.

"Each spring when sea ice melts in the Arctic or Antarctic, the ice leaves behind a layer of fresh water on the ocean surface that is full of nutrients. Microorganisms use the nutrients to develop, forming the basis for organisms higher in the food chain."

Still looks like more melt would support more phytoplankton.
Edited on 03-10-2020 07:44
03-10-2020 07:54
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1837)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+.

You were coddled.


.


WHAT?!!


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
RE: What If?03-10-2020 08:12
sclark1000
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
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?
03-10-2020 09:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Your stupid video is crap. It is not data. Argument from randU fallacies.
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!

Fish food does not require warmer waters. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans. Argument from randU fallacy.
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.

An annular eclipse has no zone of totality. A special pleading fallacy is based on a divisional error. It is denying a class because of an exceptional element of that class. You can look up examples on the web.
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.

Not the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd of thermodynamics is e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. The system must be consistent and definable. In other words, closed. It does not need to be isolated. CO2 is not a source of energy and cannot override the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are now also denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.
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.

Irrational. You must clear your paradox. You must choose one of the arguments and utterly reject the other. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
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.

There is no data in the video.
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.

Hasty conclusion fallacy...a form of circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
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.

Off topic nonsensical response. Try again.
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!!

No argument presented. Inversions. Paradox. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Word salad.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
03-10-2020 09:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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.

The ozone layer is not being depleted.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
03-10-2020 09:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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?


Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
03-10-2020 15:23
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
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.


Guess you've never spent much time in Florida... We have a huge variety of marine life. Shark bite capital of the world... Plenty of fish, and other sea critters. The big difference is that Florida isn't mainly dependent on the ocean for food, like those frozen wastelands up north.

I think people are a little off in all the gaseous layers crap. The planet is always moving, water and gases don't always move at the same pace, since there is also gravity, and temperature differences. We get currents, wind, even jet streams. Hardly a stagnated pond model of the real world. It's easier for most people to stop time, take a snapshot of what they want to look at, but that's just a brief moment in time, and already changed, by the time the take another snapshot to gaze at for a while.
03-10-2020 20:21
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(192)
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:

"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)."

And another one:

"recent warming has been accompanied by decreases in the extent and thickness of sea ice, increases in borehole temperatures in permafrost and permafrost thawing, and later freeze-up and earlier break-up dates for river and lake ice. Permafrost warming has been reported in Russia, China, Alaska, and western Canada (Osterkamp et al., 1998). 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."

Evidence is substantial the Arctic is warming.

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.

If the cloud cover of a frigid climate increases, wouldn't the same effect be observed?

3)

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

Is this your confirmation, CO2 can't escape the atmosphere if it doesn't get absorbed by plants, seas, or rocks?
03-10-2020 21:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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:

Pivot fallacy. You were talking about temperature, not sea ice. No satellite can estimate anything. A satellite is not a study. A study is not a proof, a Universal Truth, nor science.
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)."

It is not possible to measure the volume of polar ice.
Spongy Iris wrote:
And another one:

"recent warming

What warming? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the ocean or the polar areas.
Spongy Iris wrote:
has been accompanied by decreases in the extent and thickness of sea ice,

It is not possible to measure the volume of polar ice.
Spongy Iris wrote:
increases in borehole temperatures in permafrost and permafrost thawing,

Permafrost thaws every year in the summer. Boreholes do not show thawing. Boreholes do not show temperature.
Spongy Iris wrote:
and later freeze-up and earlier break-up dates for river and lake ice.

Define 'later' and 'earlier'. Later than what? Earlier than what? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are no other points in time significant?
Spongy Iris wrote:
Permafrost warming has been reported in Russia, China, Alaska, and western Canada (Osterkamp et al., 1998).

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the permafrost areas.
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."

It's called 'frost heave'. This is normal throughout colder areas of the United States and Canada.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Evidence is substantial the Arctic is warming.

Evidence is not a measurement, nor a proof, nor a Universal Truth. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
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.

It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Gloves (and coats, and blankets, or any other thermal insulation) reduces heat by conduction.
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.

It is. So is the Sun-Earth-space system. So is the entire solar system. So is the known Universe.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Is this your confirmation, CO2 can't escape the atmosphere if it doesn't get absorbed by plants, seas, or rocks?

Why would it? Are you seriously going to argue that CO2 has antigravity properties??


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-10-2020 00:56
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
Other than lack of measuring equipment (never stopped the IPCC before), why only look back to the past 30 years? I was just a kid, but remember there was some massive melting going on in the 70's. They were finding frozen remains of extinct animals, and all kinds of other lost crap. Could it be, that there was some massive polar icing years, in the past 60 years, after the melting years?

The last ice age was what, 10,000 years ago? This is our first inter-glacial, where we started recording stuff in writing. The early records, found on cave walls, are a little hard to interpret, not sure how significant those records are. Could be decorative decor, graffiti, or just some crazies smearing feces on the walls.

I would have thought the democrats would have grown out of 'reading signs', then going bat crazy, trying to avoid some imagined catastrophe. When they lived near volcanoes, and the ground shook a little, they started dumping on the volcano. The point is that we've never been through any of this before, to really know what's going on, or what to expect, when. May not be what the democrats think at all, and sacrifices aren't going to have any more effect, as they did on the volcano erupting.
04-10-2020 00:57
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(192)
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.

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.

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

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.
04-10-2020 03:43
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
Fossils have been found that are particular to Arctic climates in the hills of Kenya and other African countries.The rift vally was created by a Glacier.You are all over thinking this.The ice forms and melts its what it does but somehow you think its all melting because of a tiny amount of CO2.People in 50 years are going to laugh their heads of when they look back on this period in history.In the 60s a soviet submarine punched through the ice It happened as a british submarine was tailing it.The spring thaw is because the sun shines directly on the ice and it melts.At the peak of summer it shines on the ice for days at a time.Explain why 2019 and 2020 Hudson bay completly froze over to Ontario and it has not done that for years.If you can some how compare putting gloves on a warm blooded mammal to clouds over frozen ocean I feel all rational discussion may be to late for you
04-10-2020 03:47
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
S I for some reason other posters think you are british.If so I dare you to get the train to john O groats for christmas then tell us how F off hot it is.
04-10-2020 08:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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.

CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. The risk is zero.
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.

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

It's not melting.
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.

It never froze (at least at sea level).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-10-2020 10:21
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
ITN the whole Earth was a big frozen blob at some time in our distant past.I also disagree with your stance on no gas can warm the Earth.CO2 can radiate IR light but the amount claimed is wrong.It needs 3 zeros added before the decimal point the effect is minimal at best.If the atmosphere was 25% CO2 it would be much warmer.The first atmospheric measurements were taken at Mauna loa in 1955 and it was 280ppm now it is 380ppm.I tested yesterday to show some people and it was 384ppm and varying around plus minus 10ppm in other words F all.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 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.What is with James and his obsession with Ozone depletion.All that mythical crap went away years ago after Julian lennon wrote a song about the hole in the sky.
04-10-2020 19:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7515)
duncan61 wrote: ITN the whole Earth was a big frozen blob at some time in our distant past.

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

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

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.

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

Big deal. When does it increase in temperature without additional energy?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
04-10-2020 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN the whole Earth was a big frozen blob at some time in our distant past.

How do you know? Were you there?
duncan61 wrote:
I also disagree with your stance on no gas can warm the Earth.

It takes energy to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor can spontaneously add energy to the Earth. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
duncan61 wrote:
CO2 can radiate IR light but the amount claimed is wrong.

Everything above zero degrees Kelvin is radiating light. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
duncan61 wrote:
It needs 3 zeros added before the decimal point the effect is minimal at best.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. No way, no how, not ever.
duncan61 wrote:
If the atmosphere was 25% CO2 it would be much warmer.

CO2 has not magick ability to warm the Earth or create energy out of nothing.
duncan61 wrote:
The first atmospheric measurements were taken at Mauna loa in 1955 and it was 280ppm now it is 380ppm.

I am aware of the Mauna Loa data. They are not capable of monitoring the CO2 content in Earth's atmosphere.
duncan61 wrote:
I tested yesterday to show some people and it was 384ppm and varying around plus minus 10ppm in other words F all.

You were also testing only at the surface, and at varying times of day, and in varying locations at different times.
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

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There is no data on the temperature of the Earth, either in 1930 nor now. Argument from randU fallacy.
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.

Math error. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to use data free of bias. Location grouping is significant. Thermometers must be uniformly placed. Time is significant. Thermometers must be read at the same time under the same authority. Variance is significant. You can't ignore it.
duncan61 wrote:
What is with James and his obsession with Ozone depletion.

He belongs to the Church of the Ozone Hole.
duncan61 wrote:
All that mythical crap went away years ago after Julian lennon wrote a song about the hole in the sky.

No, it did not go away. This religion still exists.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-10-2020 01:58
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
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.
05-10-2020 02:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7515)
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.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
05-10-2020 04:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-10-2020 12:34
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
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 and there are Arctic type sea life fossils in Kenya.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.
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
05-10-2020 12:53
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
I am sure the current atmosphere stops us burning up in the day and not freezing at night so if the composition of the atmosphere changes things change.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
05-10-2020 15:12
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
We really only can guess and speculate about ice ages and inter-glacial periods. We didn't have a language, or writing that survived the last ice age, if there was any. All recorded observations started long after much of the last ice age melted. Glaciers can hang around a long time after the ice age, not a real good indicator. Long as annual precipitation more or less keeps up with the melt, the glacier persists. We don't know if most of the planet was ever frozen, all at the same time, for many years, or just parts of it. Obviously, some parts had to be warm enough for plant growth for animals to survive, specially the reptiles. Animals follow the food, and plants are the most basic food to find. Plants don't do real well in the ice and snow.

There is no absolute way of know what happened, when, or how long it lasted. Just like we don't know how this inter-glacial period is going to work out, how long it will last, or even if it has to end in another ice age. The trigger could be something simple, like a huge hunk of space rock slamming into the planet, which, almost never happens...
05-10-2020 16:23
James___
★★★★★
(3286)
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.
05-10-2020 20:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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

No. The rift valley is created by spreading action between two tectonic plates. It will eventually be flooded by the sea.
duncan61 wrote:
and there are Arctic type sea life fossils in Kenya.

What Arctic type fossils are found 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.

Fossils are found everywhere, not just in Africa.
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

You are heating the next piece with the brick as well as the torch. The brick itself was heated by the torch. The brick is acting as a thermal ballast, but it is not creating energy by itself.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-10-2020 20:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
duncan61 wrote:
I am sure the current atmosphere stops us burning up in the day and not freezing at night

It does. It doesn't add any energy by itself. It is a mass. Like any mass, the atmosphere takes time to heat and cool.
duncan61 wrote:
so if the composition of the atmosphere changes things change.

Nope. It's all about mass. It doesn't matter what the mass is. The Stefan-Boltzmann law (Earth cools by converting thermal energy into light, which is radiated away) has no factor to describe the composition of the substance emitting.
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

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-10-2020 20:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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.

What do brush fires have to do with ozone (other than creating some)?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-10-2020 22:15
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(192)
ITN,

Who said CO2 is heating up the entire solar system??? That is basically what you are arguing by citing the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics incessantly. It should be pretty obvious who is the one making irrelevant comments.

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?

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

Earth is not entirely a closed system. People are born everyday. You might want to consider it like a bicycle tire with air getting pumped into it.

One more thing, please tell me how gloves can warm my hands without violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
05-10-2020 22:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13487)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-10-2020 23:01
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(192)
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.


What is RQAA?
06-10-2020 00:10
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(192)
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???
06-10-2020 03:38
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(634)
ITN the swimming pool/wine glass analogy is for the people who claim the ocean is getting more acidic.Now do you get the point.
06-10-2020 07:15
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2543)
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???


So, people dying relieves the pressure of the births. Does that include the 1500 abortion performed in America every day?

I tend to look at things from an electronic stand point, something I've work in a long time. When you have a weak signal, you need to amplify it. That can only be done, by adding energy. You get nothing for free, there is a certain cost to everything, a trade off.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Polar Ice Melt Now 6 Times Greater Than 1990s:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
sea ice717-08-2020 09:22
hudson bay sea ice1601-07-2020 22:12
ICE AGE?: Is The End OF The Interglacial Phase Coming Or Have We Accidentally Saved Humanity With Fossil 14423-06-2020 21:01
Electric cars vs ICE cars2215-05-2020 23:22
the coming little ice age will wreck havoc on global economy613-05-2020 21:36
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact