Remember me
▼ Content

What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or



Page 1 of 212>
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or06-01-2019 22:37
Zloppino
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence
06-01-2019 23:03
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
There is no actual evidence to support anything unnatural is going, since we haven't experienced anything like this before, in any recorded history. It's our first recovery from a full ice age, and nobody really knows what is normal, or what to expect. We'll find out when it happens...

The science is computer simulations of possible scenarios, 'what if'... Then they look for ways the scary ones might work for real. They can sound convincing, but it's just a computer game out of control...
07-01-2019 05:21
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or
Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence


The evidence that there is global warming now?
Two main lines of evidence, increasing temperatures and rising sealevel. Some other evidence such as retreating mountain glaciers.

For temperature, see http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The surface temperature anomaly is almost a degree (C) so far. So far, not a big deal. Sea level rise also no big deal so far, some slight flooding some places at highest tides.

Evidence from lots of ordinary temperature and sealevel measurements collected over decades by multiple agencies.

The evidence is there that there has been a little warming, though some deny it.

Know that is is caused by humans though? That's harder to understand. Really helps to remember some physics. A little chemistry maybe too. Kind of have to try to understand what affects temperatures and then figure out what has changed. The most obvious candidates, a change in the Sun's energy output or a change in the Earth-Sun distance have been looked at and ruled out. Beyond that you get into what is usually called the "greenhouse effect." Not an especially accurate name but it is used. Find some online explanations for the greenhouse effect. The Wikipedia entry might be a good place to start. There are explanations online that are oversimplified to the point of being wrong though. If you want to go deeper, try the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert.

A threat to the Earth or humanity if global warming continues, even accelerates? People do exaggerate.
In a million years the Earth itself won't seem any more different because of AGW.
Humanity: Not a threat to the existence of our species that I can tell, but maybe harm to individuals. Depends on how far things go and how fast. A meter of sealevel rise can be handled. Enough sealevel rise and seaports will have to move. Move New York and London and Shanghai and Tokyo to where? Temperatures affect agriculture, when to plant and what crop varieties to plant for best yields. Small changes can be handled. Large changes, not so easy, especially in some third-world countries. Possible famine, eventually, some places. I won't see that, but grandchildren might.
07-01-2019 11:06
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
The IPCC seems to quickly rule out many things, and just focuses always on man-made CO2. I've a strong suspicion that when you put all these discarded forces together, we'd find that there is more to the story. Total amount of CO2 is only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, about 400 ppm. It's just not a vastly significant amount of anything, to produce such a horrific effect, to discount everything else.

Sea levels have always changed, high tide and low tide is different pretty much daily. Beach erosion, another natural process, has some effect on measurements as well. Tough to get any real measurement of a huge body of moving water.

The 'warming' has been going on for a long time, 10,000-20,000 years. It's doubtful we will see a whole lot of new weather cycles, just more of what we already had in the past. Keep in mind that all these doomsday predictions, are really just scenarios, run through a computer simulation (climate models), based on a very short, limited, data base. Based on the how the parameters are tweaked, the results for each scenario, can range from mild-wild. We've had many years of drought/famine, and many years of flooding, many years with harsh winters as well.
07-01-2019 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
still learning wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or
Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence


The evidence that there is global warming now?
Two main lines of evidence, increasing temperatures and rising sealevel.

There isn't any evidence of increasing temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even with all of our thermometers.
still learning wrote:
Some other evidence such as retreating mountain glaciers.

What about the advancing mountain glaciers?
still learning wrote:

For temperature, see ...deleted Holy Link...
The surface temperature anomaly is almost a degree (C) so far. So far, not a big deal.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
still learning wrote:
Sea level rise also no big deal so far, some slight flooding some places at highest tides.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no valid reference point.
still learning wrote:

Evidence from lots of ordinary temperature and sealevel measurements collected over decades by multiple agencies.

How many thermometers are used by these agencies to measure global temperature? Yes...you need to know this number to calculate the margin of error.
still learning wrote:

The evidence is there that there has been a little warming, though some deny it.

I completely deny it. It is not possible to measure it.
still learning wrote:

Know that is is caused by humans though? That's harder to understand. Really helps to remember some physics. A little chemistry maybe too. Kind of have to try to understand what affects temperatures and then figure out what has changed. The most obvious candidates, a change in the Sun's energy output or a change in the Earth-Sun distance have been looked at and ruled out.

The only significant source of energy the Earth has is the Sun. Ruling out the Sun's effect on the Earth's temperature is ridiculous.
still learning wrote:

Beyond that you get into what is usually called the "greenhouse effect." Not an especially accurate name but it is used. Find some online explanations for the greenhouse effect. The Wikipedia entry might be a good place to start. There are explanations online that are oversimplified to the point of being wrong though. If you want to go deeper, try the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert.

This textbook is wrong. It ignores the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Magick Holy Gas like CO2 have NO effect on the temperature of the Earth. They are not an energy source. No gas or vapor has the capability to change Earth's temperature.
still learning wrote:

A threat to the Earth or humanity if global warming continues, even accelerates? People do exaggerate.

Indeed they do. People also try to control others.
still learning wrote:

In a million years the Earth itself won't seem any more different because of AGW.
Humanity: Not a threat to the existence of our species that I can tell, but maybe harm to individuals.

None. Meaningless buzzwords are not a threat to anyone. The phrase 'global warming' has no meaning other than itself.
still learning wrote:
Depends on how far things go and how fast. A meter of sealevel rise can be handled. Enough sealevel rise and seaports will have to move. Move New York and London and Shanghai and Tokyo to where?

No need to move them anywhere.
still learning wrote:
Temperatures affect agriculture,
Nope. Plants are not sensitive to temperature. They are sensitive to light available and water and soil resources available.
still learning wrote:
when to plant and what crop varieties to plant for best yields.

You can plant anything anywhere, so long as the light is provided, the plant is protected from freezing (for some varieties), and water and soil nutrients are available. People grow oranges in Alaska, for example.
still learning wrote:
Small changes can be handled. Large changes, not so easy, especially in some third-world countries.

What changes? We can't measure them!
still learning wrote:
Possible famine, eventually, some places. I won't see that, but grandchildren might.

What about the famines now? They are caused by things like wars and poor farming practices. Improved farming practices around the world is improving, not getting worse.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2019 04:17
Zloppino
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
still learning wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or
Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence


The evidence that there is global warming now?
Two main lines of evidence, increasing temperatures and rising sealevel. Some other evidence such as retreating mountain glaciers.

For temperature, see http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The surface temperature anomaly is almost a degree (C) so far. So far, not a big deal. Sea level rise also no big deal so far, some slight flooding some places at highest tides.

Evidence from lots of ordinary temperature and sealevel measurements collected over decades by multiple agencies.

The evidence is there that there has been a little warming, though some deny it.

Know that is is caused by humans though? That's harder to understand. Really helps to remember some physics. A little chemistry maybe too. Kind of have to try to understand what affects temperatures and then figure out what has changed. The most obvious candidates, a change in the Sun's energy output or a change in the Earth-Sun distance have been looked at and ruled out. Beyond that you get into what is usually called the "greenhouse effect." Not an especially accurate name but it is used. Find some online explanations for the greenhouse effect. The Wikipedia entry might be a good place to start. There are explanations online that are oversimplified to the point of being wrong though. If you want to go deeper, try the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert.

A threat to the Earth or humanity if global warming continues, even accelerates? People do exaggerate.
In a million years the Earth itself won't seem any more different because of AGW.
Humanity: Not a threat to the existence of our species that I can tell, but maybe harm to individuals. Depends on how far things go and how fast. A meter of sealevel rise can be handled. Enough sealevel rise and seaports will have to move. Move New York and London and Shanghai and Tokyo to where? Temperatures affect agriculture, when to plant and what crop varieties to plant for best yields. Small changes can be handled. Large changes, not so easy, especially in some third-world countries. Possible famine, eventually, some places. I won't see that, but grandchildren might.


The current global warming began 20000 years ago at the height of the ice age. No human caused this, now grow up
09-01-2019 10:33
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
Obviously, it was really cold during the Ice Age, so naturally, we would see warming after it ended. The sticky point is how would anyone know what the "normal" temperature was before the Ice Age, and when we reach it. We still have a lot of remnants of the Ice Age, frozen mammoths are still being discovered, still a lot of glaciers. Most of the plant life seems to prefer a warmer climate, and higher CO2 levels. Even the IPCC claim that the warming is releasing more natural CO2. Before declaring a surface temperature anomaly, they would need to establish what was normal, pre-Ice Age. As good as the Climatologist like to believe there are, they can't make a guess-estimate, accurate to 1 C degrees.

I really haven't seen any evidence presented, that proved that the warming ever ended from the Ice Age, or what was consider normal temperature rise from it.

How CO2 got involved as the primary driving factor, is still a mystery to me. I just don't have the patience to read through hundreds of scientific papers, many seem a little thin on significance, barely related. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere seems really tiny, to have such a huge impact, all by itself. But it isn't just any CO2, just the man-made part of the 0.04%. The warming trend started well before the burning. I could buy that CO2 could contribute a tiny part, but not the lead actor. A few degrees increase over a couple of centuries just doesn't seem unusual, alarming, or even bad for the environment. As for the catastrophic weather events... Well, I live in Florida, a place know for some very violent weather, which has been mild for more than a decade. Hurricanes are still bad, but we use to have violent thunderstorms, almost daily, tornadoes often during our rainy season(summer). We rarely get a thunderstorm at all, tornadoes even less frequent. You'd think that as we move closer to doomsday, the weather would be getting worse, year after year, not milder.
13-04-2019 19:20
paramount99
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
still learning wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or
Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence


The evidence that there is global warming now?
Two main lines of evidence, increasing temperatures and rising sealevel. Some other evidence such as retreating mountain glaciers.

For temperature, see http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The surface temperature anomaly is almost a degree (C) so far. So far, not a big deal. Sea level rise also no big deal so far, some slight flooding some places at highest tides.

Evidence from lots of ordinary temperature and sealevel measurements collected over decades by multiple agencies.

The evidence is there that there has been a little warming, though some deny it.

Know that is is caused by humans though? That's harder to understand. Really helps to remember some physics. A little chemistry maybe too. Kind of have to try to understand what affects temperatures and then figure out what has changed. The most obvious candidates, a change in the Sun's energy output or a change in the Earth-Sun distance have been looked at and ruled out. Beyond that you get into what is usually called the "greenhouse effect." Not an especially accurate name but it is used. Find some online explanations for the greenhouse effect. The Wikipedia entry might be a good place to start. There are explanations online that are oversimplified to the point of being wrong though. If you want to go deeper, try the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert.

A threat to the Earth or humanity if global warming continues, even accelerates? People do exaggerate.
In a million years the Earth itself won't seem any more different because of AGW.
Humanity: Not a threat to the existence of our species that I can tell, but maybe harm to individuals. Depends on how far things go and how fast. A meter of sealevel rise can be handled. Enough sealevel rise and seaports will have to move. Move New York and London and Shanghai and Tokyo to where? Temperatures affect agriculture, when to plant and what crop varieties to plant for best yields. Small changes can be handled. Large changes, not so easy, especially in some third-world countries. Possible famine, eventually, some places. I won't see that, but grandchildren might.


In 874AD the Vikings set off to colonise Iceland - some years later, with continued very hot weather they moved to Greenland also, as the weather heated up yet again. They grew crops in these places that today you can not grow - because it is too cold to do so. This Viking fun went on for nearly 400 years... In 1203AD, things changed, suddenly. Bad weather (VERY BAD) and low-lying countries almost vanished before the waves. This naughty weather continued until mid-to-late 19th century.
It has been steadily warming ever since. Get the big picture yet?!?
What did the amazing Mr Trump once say: "It's only weather!"
He's right you know...
13-04-2019 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
paramount99 wrote:
still learning wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or
Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence


The evidence that there is global warming now?
Two main lines of evidence, increasing temperatures and rising sealevel. Some other evidence such as retreating mountain glaciers.

For temperature, see http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The surface temperature anomaly is almost a degree (C) so far. So far, not a big deal. Sea level rise also no big deal so far, some slight flooding some places at highest tides.

Evidence from lots of ordinary temperature and sealevel measurements collected over decades by multiple agencies.

The evidence is there that there has been a little warming, though some deny it.

Know that is is caused by humans though? That's harder to understand. Really helps to remember some physics. A little chemistry maybe too. Kind of have to try to understand what affects temperatures and then figure out what has changed. The most obvious candidates, a change in the Sun's energy output or a change in the Earth-Sun distance have been looked at and ruled out. Beyond that you get into what is usually called the "greenhouse effect." Not an especially accurate name but it is used. Find some online explanations for the greenhouse effect. The Wikipedia entry might be a good place to start. There are explanations online that are oversimplified to the point of being wrong though. If you want to go deeper, try the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert.

A threat to the Earth or humanity if global warming continues, even accelerates? People do exaggerate.
In a million years the Earth itself won't seem any more different because of AGW.
Humanity: Not a threat to the existence of our species that I can tell, but maybe harm to individuals. Depends on how far things go and how fast. A meter of sealevel rise can be handled. Enough sealevel rise and seaports will have to move. Move New York and London and Shanghai and Tokyo to where? Temperatures affect agriculture, when to plant and what crop varieties to plant for best yields. Small changes can be handled. Large changes, not so easy, especially in some third-world countries. Possible famine, eventually, some places. I won't see that, but grandchildren might.


In 874AD the Vikings set off to colonise Iceland - some years later, with continued very hot weather they moved to Greenland also, as the weather heated up yet again. They grew crops in these places that today you can not grow - because it is too cold to do so. This Viking fun went on for nearly 400 years... In 1203AD, things changed, suddenly. Bad weather (VERY BAD) and low-lying countries almost vanished before the waves. This naughty weather continued until mid-to-late 19th century.
It has been steadily warming ever since. Get the big picture yet?!?
What did the amazing Mr Trump once say: "It's only weather!"
He's right you know...


Those Vikings are still there. They still grow vegetables and such. Most of their economy is on fishing and trade. It always was.


The Parrot Killer
13-04-2019 23:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or not


Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence


Why was the question framed around the evidence supporting Global Warming as opposed to the science supporting Global Warming? Is it already understood that there is no science supporting Global Warming?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-04-2019 13:33
paramount99
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Into the Night wrote:
paramount99 wrote:
still learning wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or
Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence


The evidence that there is global warming now?
Two main lines of evidence, increasing temperatures and rising sealevel. Some other evidence such as retreating mountain glaciers.

For temperature, see http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The surface temperature anomaly is almost a degree (C) so far. So far, not a big deal. Sea level rise also no big deal so far, some slight flooding some places at highest tides.

Evidence from lots of ordinary temperature and sealevel measurements collected over decades by multiple agencies.

The evidence is there that there has been a little warming, though some deny it.

Know that is is caused by humans though? That's harder to understand. Really helps to remember some physics. A little chemistry maybe too. Kind of have to try to understand what affects temperatures and then figure out what has changed. The most obvious candidates, a change in the Sun's energy output or a change in the Earth-Sun distance have been looked at and ruled out. Beyond that you get into what is usually called the "greenhouse effect." Not an especially accurate name but it is used. Find some online explanations for the greenhouse effect. The Wikipedia entry might be a good place to start. There are explanations online that are oversimplified to the point of being wrong though. If you want to go deeper, try the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert.

A threat to the Earth or humanity if global warming continues, even accelerates? People do exaggerate.
In a million years the Earth itself won't seem any more different because of AGW.
Humanity: Not a threat to the existence of our species that I can tell, but maybe harm to individuals. Depends on how far things go and how fast. A meter of sealevel rise can be handled. Enough sealevel rise and seaports will have to move. Move New York and London and Shanghai and Tokyo to where? Temperatures affect agriculture, when to plant and what crop varieties to plant for best yields. Small changes can be handled. Large changes, not so easy, especially in some third-world countries. Possible famine, eventually, some places. I won't see that, but grandchildren might.


In 874AD the Vikings set off to colonise Iceland - some years later, with continued very hot weather they moved to Greenland also, as the weather heated up yet again. They grew crops in these places that today you can not grow - because it is too cold to do so. This Viking fun went on for nearly 400 years... In 1203AD, things changed, suddenly. Bad weather (VERY BAD) and low-lying countries almost vanished before the waves. This naughty weather continued until mid-to-late 19th century.
It has been steadily warming ever since. Get the big picture yet?!?
What did the amazing Mr Trump once say: "It's only weather!"
He's right you know...


Those Vikings are still there. They still grow vegetables and such. Most of their economy is on fishing and trade. It always was.


I guess my point was that the weather is an ever changing beast of 'natural' cause/effect. We (humans) haven't changed it that much, if at all. Ice cores and tree-rings amongst others give us all the evidence we need to fully debunk such wild, fear mongering, chaos fearing loony global warming types.
22-11-2019 01:58
Sand
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
I have my own theories - MOSTLY GREED. All the debate going on is creating a lot of financial gain for the creators, as per usual, like all chaos does. The earth did not tell us that we had to PAY another human being to live on this planet, in itself has caused a mass of destruction. If GW is the fault of humans then -

2. - Too enforce people to earn very small wages while paying for expensive items, leads to a lot of waste. For example buying cheap garbage that deteriorates very rapidly, creates a lot of pollution. Also creates a lot of manufacturing and depletion of natural resources, which creates a lot of air pollution. GREED

3. - Cars have been proven to run on water but it has been covered up so many times, that the masses believe the ones who hold all the money monopoly and media monopoly. All for the sake of oil. This has created fake terror wars and the like, which creates destruction and fear. Oil in my opinion is the earths lubricant and "cooler!" GREED

4. - The removal of forests - Firstly the Amazon Jungle creates its own rain, by removing forests you are taking rain away from certain areas of our planet. All rain forests create their own rain. This will dry up the earth surface. Secondly - by removing so many trees, you are removing a lot of suspended water, which is heading to the ocean because it is not raining as much in the outback; and if it does rain, there is nothing holding the water behind because the trees have been removed far too much. All the farmers crying about drought - is mostly because of what they have done by clearing so much land. Trees filter the earths air and also creates precipitation. GREED

5. - Apparently the earth moves closer to the sun each years. It may not be by much but it would have an effect on temperatures. Is this another form of scare tactic - hence GREED?

6. SO-CALLED EXPERTS such as engineers have gotten it wrong from the beginning. Here in Australia, our middle is drying out. I am not a bible person and have no experience with it but I am sure I heard or read that sewerage should not enter the oceans; it should be buried. I believe that if there was a super sewage plant to clean our human waste, located in the center of the country, we would be able to release the cleaned water into the natural streams, water courses, rivers, lakes etc, so that it flowed towards the ocean, thereby filtering it more and creating much needed water throughout the country, which in turn could evaporate and create rain, which would be even more filtering, that is able to drench the inland to create vegetation. This is also apparent with storm water drains. Storm water drains flow rubbish to our oceans unnaturally. Natural creeks filter the water before it arrives. This alone could hurt coral reefs. Over fishing also hurts the ocean. Sending water to the center of a country would not only create water for middle Australia, it could also have water blockages in place like dams do. This would then allow areas that are flooding to have the water supply halted and sent in different directions. This is also apparent with areas lacking water, giving that area more. It is obvious that it is our birthright to drink water and our Governments have harnessed it and sell it also, which is more criminality and GREED.

They say that we waste water, yet there will be too much water and flood us out. SO which is it? The rise is so negligible that it is hard to spot with the naked eye. By removing water from the outback, it has to go somewhere and the oceans are the only place left. Melting ice caps is just more fear mongering and they still use ice breakers?

The earth does not have any more or less water. Sure it goes from one area to another area. It becomes suspended, in trees, in humans - but it does not become more or less. There are twice the humans on earth since the early 1900's. This alone suspends water. There are less trees on earth, this releases water to the earth. Winter suspends water in the polar areas, which are at the top and bottom of the planet. One side melts, while the other freezes. When someone says you are wasting water, there is no such thing. You can not waste it and if so then why have the engineers created storm water drains that direct water to the oceans?

If cars ran on water - how much water would be in suspension there? How much evaporation and rain would this create?

Man made canals remove ocean water from its natural area. there are literally millions all over the world.

In essence, everything is designed for money - GREED and CONTROL. This is why everything is done wrong and not how it should be done.

Harness all the water, harness all the land, harness all the food, harness all the resources, harness all the skies, harness all the oceans, harness all the rules, harness all the children, harness all the rest of us, harness all the weapons, harness all the knowledge = harness all the money, which equates to HARNESS ALL CONTROL - We are doomed, including the ones who harness.
22-11-2019 03:39
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1519)
Sand wrote:
I have my own theories - MOSTLY GREED. All the debate going on is creating a lot of financial gain for the creators, as per usual, like all chaos does. The earth did not tell us that we had to PAY another human being to live on this planet, in itself has caused a mass of destruction. If GW is the fault of humans then -

2. - Too enforce people to earn very small wages while paying for expensive items, leads to a lot of waste. For example buying cheap garbage that deteriorates very rapidly, creates a lot of pollution. Also creates a lot of manufacturing and depletion of natural resources, which creates a lot of air pollution. GREED

3. - Cars have been proven to run on water but it has been covered up so many times, that the masses believe the ones who hold all the money monopoly and media monopoly. All for the sake of oil. This has created fake terror wars and the like, which creates destruction and fear. Oil in my opinion is the earths lubricant and "cooler!" GREED

4. - The removal of forests - Firstly the Amazon Jungle creates its own rain, by removing forests you are taking rain away from certain areas of our planet. All rain forests create their own rain. This will dry up the earth surface. Secondly - by removing so many trees, you are removing a lot of suspended water, which is heading to the ocean because it is not raining as much in the outback; and if it does rain, there is nothing holding the water behind because the trees have been removed far too much. All the farmers crying about drought - is mostly because of what they have done by clearing so much land. Trees filter the earths air and also creates precipitation. GREED

5. - Apparently the earth moves closer to the sun each years. It may not be by much but it would have an effect on temperatures. Is this another form of scare tactic - hence GREED?

6. SO-CALLED EXPERTS such as engineers have gotten it wrong from the beginning. Here in Australia, our middle is drying out. I am not a bible person and have no experience with it but I am sure I heard or read that sewerage should not enter the oceans; it should be buried. I believe that if there was a super sewage plant to clean our human waste, located in the center of the country, we would be able to release the cleaned water into the natural streams, water courses, rivers, lakes etc, so that it flowed towards the ocean, thereby filtering it more and creating much needed water throughout the country, which in turn could evaporate and create rain, which would be even more filtering, that is able to drench the inland to create vegetation. This is also apparent with storm water drains. Storm water drains flow rubbish to our oceans unnaturally. Natural creeks filter the water before it arrives. This alone could hurt coral reefs. Over fishing also hurts the ocean. Sending water to the center of a country would not only create water for middle Australia, it could also have water blockages in place like dams do. This would then allow areas that are flooding to have the water supply halted and sent in different directions. This is also apparent with areas lacking water, giving that area more. It is obvious that it is our birthright to drink water and our Governments have harnessed it and sell it also, which is more criminality and GREED.

They say that we waste water, yet there will be too much water and flood us out. SO which is it? The rise is so negligible that it is hard to spot with the naked eye. By removing water from the outback, it has to go somewhere and the oceans are the only place left. Melting ice caps is just more fear mongering and they still use ice breakers?

The earth does not have any more or less water. Sure it goes from one area to another area. It becomes suspended, in trees, in humans - but it does not become more or less. There are twice the humans on earth since the early 1900's. This alone suspends water. There are less trees on earth, this releases water to the earth. Winter suspends water in the polar areas, which are at the top and bottom of the planet. One side melts, while the other freezes. When someone says you are wasting water, there is no such thing. You can not waste it and if so then why have the engineers created storm water drains that direct water to the oceans?

If cars ran on water - how much water would be in suspension there? How much evaporation and rain would this create?

Man made canals remove ocean water from its natural area. there are literally millions all over the world.

In essence, everything is designed for money - GREED and CONTROL. This is why everything is done wrong and not how it should be done.

Harness all the water, harness all the land, harness all the food, harness all the resources, harness all the skies, harness all the oceans, harness all the rules, harness all the children, harness all the rest of us, harness all the weapons, harness all the knowledge = harness all the money, which equates to HARNESS ALL CONTROL - We are doomed, including the ones who harness.


You should learn what makes rain.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
22-11-2019 04:02
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
IBdaMann wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or not


Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence


Why was the question framed around the evidence supporting Global Warming as opposed to the science supporting Global Warming? Is it already understood that there is no science supporting Global Warming?



By measuring glacial retreat, science has established that warming is happening. Yet when that fact is ignored, then the cause of warming cannot be rationally discussed because an extreme bias exists.
22-11-2019 10:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or not


Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence


Why was the question framed around the evidence supporting Global Warming as opposed to the science supporting Global Warming? Is it already understood that there is no science supporting Global Warming?



By measuring glacial retreat, science has established that warming is happening. Yet when that fact is ignored, then the cause of warming cannot be rationally discussed because an extreme bias exists.

What about glaciers that are expanding?

Science does not establish anything...ever. Science is a set of theories, not proofs.


The Parrot Killer
22-11-2019 16:53
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or not


Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence


Why was the question framed around the evidence supporting Global Warming as opposed to the science supporting Global Warming? Is it already understood that there is no science supporting Global Warming?



By measuring glacial retreat, science has established that warming is happening. Yet when that fact is ignored, then the cause of warming cannot be rationally discussed because an extreme bias exists.

What about glaciers that are expanding?

Science does not establish anything...ever. Science is a set of theories, not proofs.



So what you're saying is that it can't be proven that water becomes ice if the temperature drops below 0° C. or ice turns to water if the temperature rises above 0° C.?
That's too absurd to consider. You show that you attack what you don't understand or can't control.
22-11-2019 18:47
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
I'd like to read more about the cars, proven to run on water. I've seen two in my life time. The first, was an obvious hoax, hidden internal combustion engine, running on gas. The more recent, was the Stanley Meyers car, though there was only one demonstration video, before his 'mysterious' death, and the details were never published. Stan did sell a lot plans, videos of a device to split water with electricity... Won't go into it, plenty of it on the internet. Takes more energy to split water molecules, than you can get back, burning the gasses.
22-11-2019 19:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or not


Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence


Why was the question framed around the evidence supporting Global Warming as opposed to the science supporting Global Warming? Is it already understood that there is no science supporting Global Warming?



By measuring glacial retreat, science has established that warming is happening. Yet when that fact is ignored, then the cause of warming cannot be rationally discussed because an extreme bias exists.

What about glaciers that are expanding?

Science does not establish anything...ever. Science is a set of theories, not proofs.



So what you're saying is that it can't be proven that water becomes ice if the temperature drops below 0° C. or ice turns to water if the temperature rises above 0° C.?

Proof by definition.
James___ wrote:
That's too absurd to consider. You show that you attack what you don't understand or can't control.

Contextomy fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
22-11-2019 19:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd like to read more about the cars, proven to run on water. I've seen two in my life time. The first, was an obvious hoax, hidden internal combustion engine, running on gas. The more recent, was the Stanley Meyers car, though there was only one demonstration video, before his 'mysterious' death, and the details were never published. Stan did sell a lot plans, videos of a device to split water with electricity... Won't go into it, plenty of it on the internet. Takes more energy to split water molecules, than you can get back, burning the gasses.


Go watch a steam engine.



The Parrot Killer
22-11-2019 23:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
James___ wrote: So what you're saying is that it can't be proven that water becomes ice if the temperature drops below 0° C.

Correct. It cannot be proven. It can be demonstrated. It can also be demonstrated that water boils at/near freezing.

Proofs are for logic and math. Science has only falsification through internal and external inconsistency and scientific method demonstration.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
23-11-2019 00:09
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: So what you're saying is that it can't be proven that water becomes ice if the temperature drops below 0° C.

Correct. It cannot be proven. It can be demonstrated. It can also be demonstrated that water boils at/near freezing.

Proofs are for logic and math. Science has only falsification through internal and external inconsistency and scientific method demonstration.



I think this is where you and itn show that you only wish to be difficult for who knows what reason. You did not explain why atmospheric air pressure is increasing where glaciers are.
Like I said, if a basic fact and observation are ignored, there's really nothing to discuss.
23-11-2019 04:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
James___ wrote: You did not explain why atmospheric air pressure is increasing where glaciers are.

Because atmospheric pressure is not related to glacier proximity.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
23-11-2019 05:27
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: You did not explain why atmospheric air pressure is increasing where glaciers are.

Because atmospheric pressure is not related to glacier proximity.


.



Dismissing known science is something only fools would do. Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased. It's a well known fact. Going up a mountain, atmospheric pressure is not known to increase. Yet you and itn say that you disagree.
As you are fools, other fools will embrace you and your words.
23-11-2019 05:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1539)
James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.


https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.
23-11-2019 05:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: So what you're saying is that it can't be proven that water becomes ice if the temperature drops below 0° C.

Correct. It cannot be proven. It can be demonstrated. It can also be demonstrated that water boils at/near freezing.

Proofs are for logic and math. Science has only falsification through internal and external inconsistency and scientific method demonstration.



I think this is where you and itn show that you only wish to be difficult for who knows what reason. You did not explain why atmospheric air pressure is increasing where glaciers are.
Air pressure has nothing to do with glaciers.
James___ wrote:
Like I said, if a basic fact
Not a fact. An argument. Learn what 'fact' means.
James___ wrote:
and observation are ignored,
All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Observations are not a proof.
James___ wrote:
there's really nothing to discuss.

You really aren't discussing anything.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 05:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
James___ wrote: Dismissing known science is something only fools would do.

I would never dismiss known science; it's the unknown science that I dismiss.

James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased. It's a well known fact.

I suppose that you are going to tell me that the supposed disappearance of glaciers is due to increased atmospheric pressure instead of Global Warming?

James___ wrote: Going up a mountain, atmospheric pressure is not known to increase. Yet you and itn say that you disagree.

Wait, hold on. What position are you assigning to me exactly?

Note: If you are saying that I claim that atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude all the way to zero as you approach the vacuum of space then yes, you would be correct. If you are saying that I claim something else then we need to correct your error.

James___ wrote: As you are fools, other fools will embrace you and your words.




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
23-11-2019 05:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: You did not explain why atmospheric air pressure is increasing where glaciers are.

Because atmospheric pressure is not related to glacier proximity.


.



Dismissing known science is something only fools would do.
True. Why do you dismiss science?
James___ wrote:
Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased. It's a well known fact.

Not a fact. A denial of observed behavior of water. The melting temperature of water goes DOWN with increasing pressure. That's why ice skates work.
James___ wrote:
Going up a mountain, atmospheric pressure is not known to increase. Yet you and itn say that you disagree.

The ice will still melt at 1 deg C.
James___ wrote:
As you are fools, other fools will embrace you and your words.

YALIF.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 05:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.


https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 05:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1539)
IBdaMann wrote:
I would never dismiss known science;
But James remember that "Known Science" cannot come from a book or any citeable source. ITN/IBD learned it from a guy they know, the oral tradition of science, and then IBD did his own private lab work. So it'll be really hard to know what he does. Secret club.
23-11-2019 05:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I would never dismiss known science;
But James remember that "Known Science" cannot come from a book or any citeable source. ITN/IBD learned it from a guy they know, the oral tradition of science, and then IBD did his own private lab work. So it'll be really hard to know what he does. Secret club.


RDCF. YALIF. RQAA. Bulverism fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 05:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
tmiddles wrote:That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

By one point? How do you categorize losing by two points?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
23-11-2019 07:51
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.


https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.



And yet glaciers are moving up mountains (retreating) I'm not sure about this but can ice climb up a mountain on its own? If not then something else must be happening. Like maybe melting?

http://www.bartholomewmaps.com/fragileearthnew/FE%20172-173%20Muir%20Glac.jpg
Edited on 23-11-2019 08:09
23-11-2019 09:09
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
tmiddles, with the 2 pictures of the Muir glacier in Alaska, it's now water front property.
23-11-2019 11:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1207)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.


https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.



And yet glaciers are moving up mountains (retreating) I'm not sure about this but can ice climb up a mountain on its own? If not then something else must be happening. Like maybe melting?

http://www.bartholomewmaps.com/fragileearthnew/FE%20172-173%20Muir%20Glac.jpg


ITN will deny that photography exists next.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
23-11-2019 16:54
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1508)
I don't really get why glacier ice melting, or any ice for that matter. It's normal and natural, been going on for a long time. Mostly, it's been melting, but some of it gets rebuilt over the winter months, sometimes more ice is added, than melted the year before. Glaciers have completely melted in pasts, and we can see many place where it's likely glaciers melted long ago.

The landscape is constantly changing, but is usually very slow, takes generation to notice much of it. We haven't had the historic record to realize just how much. Erosion happens everywhere, all the time. Even stuff we built, breaks, falls apart, needs repair and replacement. Nothing lasts forever, our life is short, compared to many things in nature.
23-11-2019 18:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.


https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.



And yet glaciers are moving up mountains (retreating) I'm not sure about this but can ice climb up a mountain on its own? If not then something else must be happening. Like maybe melting?

http://www.bartholomewmaps.com/fragileearthnew/FE%20172-173%20Muir%20Glac.jpg

What about glaciers that are advancing?


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 18:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.


https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.



And yet glaciers are moving up mountains (retreating) I'm not sure about this but can ice climb up a mountain on its own? If not then something else must be happening. Like maybe melting?

http://www.bartholomewmaps.com/fragileearthnew/FE%20172-173%20Muir%20Glac.jpg


ITN will deny that photography exists next.


No, but cherry picking does also.

What about the glaciers that are advancing?


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 18:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10173)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't really get why glacier ice melting, or any ice for that matter.

Glaciers are fed by snow accumulation at their head. If that accumulation slow for any reason,the glacier will retreat. Some of the ice melts, some of it sublimes away.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's normal and natural, been going on for a long time.
Yes it has. Eastern Washington's landscape, and the Gorge where the Columbia river was formed by a glacier melting in Montana. This glacier held back a massive lake. The resulting catastrophic flood formed the weird terrain we have in eastern Washington, and carved out both the Snake and Columbia river courses.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, it's been melting, but some of it gets rebuilt over the winter months, sometimes more ice is added, than melted the year before.

Mostly, glaciers have been melting, and long before we ever came to this country. Have temperatures warmed since then? Probably. It wasn't due to our cars driving around though or any industrial plants! Glacier melt has been happening long before either of these was even invented.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Glaciers have completely melted in pasts, and we can see many place where it's likely glaciers melted long ago.
Such as eastern Washington and all the way into Montana.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The landscape is constantly changing, but is usually very slow, takes generation to notice much of it. We haven't had the historic record to realize just how much.

The indians living here have a flood story, much like Noah's in the Bible (but without the animals). It is said they escaped by climbing into the mountains. Other tribes describe the use of boats, some of them quite large. None of their stories describe how the animals survived it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Erosion happens everywhere, all the time. Even stuff we built, breaks, falls apart, needs repair and replacement. Nothing lasts forever, our life is short, compared to many things in nature.

Quite true. Our life is quite long, compared to many things in nature as well. Remember the mayfly, which lives only 24 hours as an adult.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 20:21
James___
★★★★☆
(1829)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.


https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.



And yet glaciers are moving up mountains (retreating) I'm not sure about this but can ice climb up a mountain on its own? If not then something else must be happening. Like maybe melting?

http://www.bartholomewmaps.com/fragileearthnew/FE%20172-173%20Muir%20Glac.jpg

What about glaciers that are advancing?



Glaciers periodically retreat or advance, depending on the amount of snow accumulation or evaporation or melt that occurs. This retreat and advance refers only to the position of the terminus, or snout, of the glacier. Even as it retreats, the glacier still deforms and moves downslope, like a conveyor belt.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/move.html
24-11-2019 13:00
spot
★★★★☆
(1207)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.


https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.



And yet glaciers are moving up mountains (retreating) I'm not sure about this but can ice climb up a mountain on its own? If not then something else must be happening. Like maybe melting?

http://www.bartholomewmaps.com/fragileearthnew/FE%20172-173%20Muir%20Glac.jpg


ITN will deny that photography exists next.


No, but cherry picking does also.

What about the glaciers that are advancing?


We can discuss advancing glaciers after you provide evidence. If you can figure out how to fly a plane you can surely do that.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N221207-12-2019 12:09
Evidence of rapid climate change!012-10-2019 06:09
Anecdotal evidence2026-09-2019 12:56
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus8826-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury418-09-2019 22:37
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact