Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[Billy_Bob]

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted.

As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.

When the sun is active the flows from the sun, like wind, push against our atmosphere. As the earth rotates this pressure pushes atmosphere to the poles increasing the mass of the atmosphere above them. The NASA photo below shows how solar wind pushes against the magnetosphere and against our atmosphere.

When the wind reduces so do the pressures against our atmosphere. If you spin a partially filled balloon and apply a wind pressure against it the center will flatten and the ends round. This is what happens to earths atmosphere.

When there is high pressures against our atmosphere from the sun the depth of atmosphere above the equator decreases and above the poles increase.

This allows the polar jet to reside high in latitudes and warming of the equator will push towards the polls keeping the polar jet tightly constrained to the poles. This is a warming globe.

With cooling and low solar influence things are very different. With low pressures (as we have today) against the magnetosphere and atmosphere, the mass of the atmosphere is flung out due to earths rotation, allowing the atmosphere near the poles to be drawn to the equator.

The draw down of atmosphere causes the polar Cells to thin and widen pulling the polar jet to mid latitudes. This results in a paradoxical warming of the arctic regions and massive cooling of the mid latitudes. The thin atmosphere mass above the poles allows heat escape to accelerate.

What we see today is a natural and normal presentation of the earth entering a cooling phase. With Solar influence now slated to be very low for the next 30-60 years our cooling is just beginning.

As we near the new thermal equilibrium of the earths new energy input/output levels, the zones will return to what we have seen as normal over recent years. When that happens, the poles will freeze over rapidly and glaciation will resume. Many Northern Hemisphere glaciers have already begun to increase in size. The ice mass on Greenland has tripled in just three years.

This is just the beginning..

 

[Billy_Bob]

And Earths atmosphere is not uniform around the globe. The thickness changes daily dependent on the opposing solar force applied..

 

[Billy_Bob]

In a warming world the polar jets will become tightly constrained and cold will be tightly kept locally until the warming and the heat retention of the atmosphere above the poles eventually warms it. Were nowhere near this eventuality. Paradoxical presentation of a cold and constrained arctic in a warming world.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In our currently cooling world the wide and powerful polar jets cools the mid-latitudes while the heat is released above the pole from the reduced mass of the atmosphere and the heat being widely spread out, high in the reduced atmosphere. Again a paradoxical presentation of a warming arctic in a cooling world.

In both a cooling world and a warming world, when we reach near equilibrium the polar jet will expand to it median path or retract to its median path. Right now were no where near the median path.

None of this fits in many peoples minds because they do not know how the system works or why. Were just getting a good scratch on the surface. This is a very simplified explanation but one that is desperately needed to teach people that any man caused warming is extremely exaggerated.

 

[SSDD]

They claim global warming is responsible for the record cold....does that mean that global cooling is responsible for record warm? Or is that warming also due to the magical properties of CO2?

 

[Billy_Bob]

They claim global warming is responsible for the record cold....does that mean that global cooling is responsible for record warm? Or is that warming also due to the magical properties of CO2?

They use the "warming" of both processes as evidence of man caused influence. Neither is true. As of just this month, the IPCC's hypothesis of influence dropped below 0.2 deg C over 150 years.

But you haven't heard a word about it...

 

[SSDD]

Trending ever towards zero....where it belongs.

 

[mamooth]

This is just the beginning..

No, it's more of your nonsense, and this time it's dumber than usual. The solar wind has zero effect on the troposphere and weather. Your diagrams of global wind patterns have nothing to do with the solar wind. Your fundamental failure here is your inability to grasp the difference between the magnetosphere and the atmosphere.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Billy can show us he's not crazy, by linking to the actual science that backs up his claim that the solar wind pushes the troposphere (and not the magnetosphere) away on the sunlit side of the earth.

SSDD, Darkwind, feel free to do so as well. You two are both kissing up to Billy here, which means you're endorsing his nutty theory as well. That means you're obligated to back it up as well, if you don't want to be thought of as mindless cult sheep. If you do want to be thought of that way, snarl and cry at me now without linking to any science.

 

[SSDD]

Two top shelf morons who don't have a damn clue about how the earth warms and cools....

Aint it the truth. I just had an interesting read about the ability of IR to warm the atmosphere...seems that there are literally millions of hours of experimentation that demonstrate conclusively that no such thing is, has, or ever will happen.

The article started with the early observations of the supposed authors of modern day climate catastrophe. John Tyndal, for example, did extensive laboratory testing on the absorption of various gasses to "block" the transmission of IR radiation which he called calorific rays. He tested gasses at concentrations of 80,000ppm. Regarding CO2 or "carbonic gas" he observed:

“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.” [2]

His observations of CO2 at atmospheric concentrations were that CO2 had no effect on the temperature of air and it didn't matter how much IR you passed through it.

“Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”

Then Svante Arrhenius ignored those findings and hypothesized that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere could actually heat the ground. In 1900 Knut Angstrom experimented and published "On the Importance of Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Absorption of the Atmosphere" He observed that IR does not warm the air.

His observations have been confirmed by literally millions upon millions of hours of commercial application and testing of infrared heating.

Statements regarding infrared heating:

“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.” …..

“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.” …..

“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.” [1]

And back to John Tyndal who noted that while certain gasses absorb IR, they also emit IR.

“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”

As I have stated before, increasing the amount of IR reactive gasses in the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere and the idea that increasing the emissivity of a thing causes it to warm is among the stupidest hypotheses ever postulated.

Literally millions of hours of experiment and observation demonstrate conclusively that IR does not warm the air and yet, the wackos hold on to their magical thinking for dear life....not because of science, but because of politics.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You wouldn't know real science even if it smacked you upside of the head... The absence of any credible answer is evidence of your inability to understand it or refute what I have stated.

Says the PSI-cultist who still fails at understanding the difference between the atmosphere and the magnetosphere.

As usual, you've refused to provide any evidence to back up your loopy PSI-cult rambling. And as I predicted, you screamed insults as a way of deflecting from this failure.

Notice how almost none of the other deniers are jumping on your latest bandwagon of stupid here? SSDD did, of course, but like you, he's hopelessly brainwashed with PSI-cult lunacy. That should tell you something. Your claims here are so bizarre, even your fellow conspiracy-loving deniers won't touch them.

Anyone who has the slightest training in atmospheric process understands the BASIC PRINCIPALS. Thanks for proving you haven't even the slightest clue or training..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Two top shelf morons who don't have a damn clue about how the earth warms and cools....

Aint it the truth. I just had an interesting read about the ability of IR to warm the atmosphere...seems that there are literally millions of hours of experimentation that demonstrate conclusively that no such thing is, has, or ever will happen.

The article started with the early observations of the supposed authors of modern day climate catastrophe. John Tyndal, for example, did extensive laboratory testing on the absorption of various gasses to "block" the transmission of IR radiation which he called calorific rays. He tested gasses at concentrations of 80,000ppm. Regarding CO2 or "carbonic gas" he observed:

“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.” [2]

His observations of CO2 at atmospheric concentrations were that CO2 had no effect on the temperature of air and it didn't matter how much IR you passed through it.

“Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”

Then Svante Arrhenius ignored those findings and hypothesized that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere could actually heat the ground. In 1900 Knut Angstrom experimented and published "On the Importance of Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Absorption of the Atmosphere" He observed that IR does not warm the air.

His observations have been confirmed by literally millions upon millions of hours of commercial application and testing of infrared heating.

Statements regarding infrared heating:

“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.” …..

“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.” …..

“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.” [1]

And back to John Tyndal who noted that while certain gasses absorb IR, they also emit IR.

“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”

As I have stated before, increasing the amount of IR reactive gasses in the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere and the idea that increasing the emissivity of a thing causes it to warm is among the stupidest hypotheses ever postulated.

Literally millions of hours of experiment and observation demonstrate conclusively that IR does not warm the air and yet, the wackos hold on to their magical thinking for dear life....not because of science, but because of politics.

LWIR is so low in the physical processes that it is physically incapable of what the alarmists claim.

 

[Old Rocks]

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted.

As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.

When the sun is active the flows from the sun, like wind, push against our atmosphere. As the earth rotates this pressure pushes atmosphere to the poles increasing the mass of the atmosphere above them. The NASA photo below shows how solar wind pushes against the magnetosphere and against our atmosphere.

View attachment 172129

When the wind reduces so do the pressures against our atmosphere. If you spin a partially filled balloon and apply a wind pressure against it the center will flatten and the ends round. This is what happens to earths atmosphere.

When there is high pressures against our atmosphere from the sun the depth of atmosphere above the equator decreases and above the poles increase.

View attachment 172131

This allows the polar jet to reside high in latitudes and warming of the equator will push towards the polls keeping the polar jet tightly constrained to the poles. This is a warming globe.

With cooling and low solar influence things are very different. With low pressures (as we have today) against the magnetosphere and atmosphere, the mass of the atmosphere is flung out due to earths rotation, allowing the atmosphere near the poles to be drawn to the equator.

View attachment 172132

The draw down of atmosphere causes the polar Cells to thin and widen pulling the polar jet to mid latitudes. This results in a paradoxical warming of the arctic regions and massive cooling of the mid latitudes. The thin atmosphere mass above the poles allows heat escape to accelerate.

What we see today is a natural and normal presentation of the earth entering a cooling phase. With Solar influence now slated to be very low for the next 30-60 years our cooling is just beginning.

As we near the new thermal equilibrium of the earths new energy input/output levels, the zones will return to what we have seen as normal over recent years. When that happens, the poles will freeze over rapidly and glaciation will resume. Many Northern Hemisphere glaciers have already begun to increase in size. The ice mass on Greenland has tripled in just three years.

This is just the beginning..

So you say the ice mass in Greenland has tripled in 3 years? LOL Silly Billy, what you pulled out of your ass should stink even to you. There are 684,000 cubic miles of ice in Greenland, so you are stating either it increased by 1,368,000 cubic miles, or that it was only 226,000 cubic miles in 2014. Either way that is an impossible amount of snow for three years.

A visual depiction of how much ice Greenland is losing
A visual depiction of how much ice Greenland is losing
Posted on 27 April 2010 by John Cook
I'm talking at the University of Queensland next week so I thought I might use Skeptical Science to test-drive a new visual metaphor. Sometimes in the climate debate, we get a bit lost in the data and statistical analysis, forgetting the sheer scale of the impact we're having on our climate. A vivid example is the amount of ice that Greenland is currently losing. When scientists talk about ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet, they refer to gigatonnes of ice. One gigatonne is one billion tonnes. To get a picture of how large this is, imagine a block of ice one kilometre high by one kilometer wide by one kilometre deep (okay, the edges are actually 1055 metres long as ice is slightly less dense than water but you get the idea). Borrowing from alien invasion movies, the scale is well illustrated by comparing a gigatonne block of ice to a famous, historical landmark like the Empire State Building:

How much ice is Greenland losing? This is monitored by satellites which have measured changes in gravity around the ice sheet over the last decade (Velicogna 2009). In 2002 to 2003, the Greenland ice sheet was losing mass at a rate of 137 gigatonnes per year.

However, the rate of ice loss has more than doubled in less than a decade. The rate of ice loss over the 2008 to 2009 period was 286 gigatonnes per year.

This is a vivid reminder that global warming isn't a statistical abstraction cooked up in a climate lab. Greenland is just one example of the physical realities of climate change. On the other side of the planet, Antarctica is also losing ice at an accelerating rate. All over the globe, glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate.

It's also a reminder of the massive amount of inertia at play in our climate. It takes time for the massive Greenland ice sheet to respond to warming. But this inertia is not our friend. Now that Greenland is losing ice at an accelerating rate, it's not like we can throw a rope around the ice sheet and hold it back. The steadily accelerating ice loss from Greenland is an ominous reminder that our actions now will have effects long into the future.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted.

As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.

When the sun is active the flows from the sun, like wind, push against our atmosphere. As the earth rotates this pressure pushes atmosphere to the poles increasing the mass of the atmosphere above them. The NASA photo below shows how solar wind pushes against the magnetosphere and against our atmosphere.

View attachment 172129

When the wind reduces so do the pressures against our atmosphere. If you spin a partially filled balloon and apply a wind pressure against it the center will flatten and the ends round. This is what happens to earths atmosphere.

When there is high pressures against our atmosphere from the sun the depth of atmosphere above the equator decreases and above the poles increase.

View attachment 172131

This allows the polar jet to reside high in latitudes and warming of the equator will push towards the polls keeping the polar jet tightly constrained to the poles. This is a warming globe.

With cooling and low solar influence things are very different. With low pressures (as we have today) against the magnetosphere and atmosphere, the mass of the atmosphere is flung out due to earths rotation, allowing the atmosphere near the poles to be drawn to the equator.

View attachment 172132

The draw down of atmosphere causes the polar Cells to thin and widen pulling the polar jet to mid latitudes. This results in a paradoxical warming of the arctic regions and massive cooling of the mid latitudes. The thin atmosphere mass above the poles allows heat escape to accelerate.

What we see today is a natural and normal presentation of the earth entering a cooling phase. With Solar influence now slated to be very low for the next 30-60 years our cooling is just beginning.

As we near the new thermal equilibrium of the earths new energy input/output levels, the zones will return to what we have seen as normal over recent years. When that happens, the poles will freeze over rapidly and glaciation will resume. Many Northern Hemisphere glaciers have already begun to increase in size. The ice mass on Greenland has tripled in just three years.

This is just the beginning..

So you say the ice mass in Greenland has tripled in 3 years? LOL Silly Billy, what you pulled out of your ass should stink even to you. There are 684,000 cubic miles of ice in Greenland, so you are stating either it increased by 1,368,000 cubic miles, or that it was only 226,000 cubic miles in 2014. Either way that is an impossible amount of snow for three years.

A visual depiction of how much ice Greenland is losing
A visual depiction of how much ice Greenland is losing
Posted on 27 April 2010 by John Cook
I'm talking at the University of Queensland next week so I thought I might use Skeptical Science to test-drive a new visual metaphor. Sometimes in the climate debate, we get a bit lost in the data and statistical analysis, forgetting the sheer scale of the impact we're having on our climate. A vivid example is the amount of ice that Greenland is currently losing. When scientists talk about ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet, they refer to gigatonnes of ice. One gigatonne is one billion tonnes. To get a picture of how large this is, imagine a block of ice one kilometre high by one kilometer wide by one kilometre deep (okay, the edges are actually 1055 metres long as ice is slightly less dense than water but you get the idea). Borrowing from alien invasion movies, the scale is well illustrated by comparing a gigatonne block of ice to a famous, historical landmark like the Empire State Building:

How much ice is Greenland losing? This is monitored by satellites which have measured changes in gravity around the ice sheet over the last decade (Velicogna 2009). In 2002 to 2003, the Greenland ice sheet was losing mass at a rate of 137 gigatonnes per year.

However, the rate of ice loss has more than doubled in less than a decade. The rate of ice loss over the 2008 to 2009 period was 286 gigatonnes per year.

This is a vivid reminder that global warming isn't a statistical abstraction cooked up in a climate lab. Greenland is just one example of the physical realities of climate change. On the other side of the planet, Antarctica is also losing ice at an accelerating rate. All over the globe, glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate.

It's also a reminder of the massive amount of inertia at play in our climate. It takes time for the massive Greenland ice sheet to respond to warming. But this inertia is not our friend. Now that Greenland is losing ice at an accelerating rate, it's not like we can throw a rope around the ice sheet and hold it back. The steadily accelerating ice loss from Greenland is an ominous reminder that our actions now will have effects long into the future.

I wouldn't be touting John Cook on anything... What a moron...

And as usual the liar cook is wrong again...

 

[SSDD]

Ever note how rocks goes about placing "funny" ratings on things...laughing like a monkey in a tree about things he doesn't even begin to understand...of course, relying on folks like cook goes a long way towards explaining why he is reduced to laughing like a gibbering idiot rather than actually supporting his position with anything like actual observed measurements.

The little blue boxes were pretty though..I can understand how a small mind might be fooled by them...you know...pretty colors and all..

 

[mamooth]

And as usual the liar cook is wrong again...

That chart just shows surface mass balance, which is snowfall minus melt. Snowfall is increasing due to warmer air holding more moisture, which the chart shows.

However, the chart does _not_ include glacier calving, which has accelerated massively, and which is causing the ice loss to accelerate.

By leaving that out, Billy is lying by omission.

He may or may not have known that. But he knows it now, and he'll still lie about it deliberately. Cook is scrupulously honest, while Billy and pals are all pathological liars.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted.

As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.

When the sun is active the flows from the sun, like wind, push against our atmosphere. As the earth rotates this pressure pushes atmosphere to the poles increasing the mass of the atmosphere above them. The NASA photo below shows how solar wind pushes against the magnetosphere and against our atmosphere.

View attachment 172129

When the wind reduces so do the pressures against our atmosphere. If you spin a partially filled balloon and apply a wind pressure against it the center will flatten and the ends round. This is what happens to earths atmosphere.

When there is high pressures against our atmosphere from the sun the depth of atmosphere above the equator decreases and above the poles increase.

View attachment 172131

This allows the polar jet to reside high in latitudes and warming of the equator will push towards the polls keeping the polar jet tightly constrained to the poles. This is a warming globe.

With cooling and low solar influence things are very different. With low pressures (as we have today) against the magnetosphere and atmosphere, the mass of the atmosphere is flung out due to earths rotation, allowing the atmosphere near the poles to be drawn to the equator.

View attachment 172132

The draw down of atmosphere causes the polar Cells to thin and widen pulling the polar jet to mid latitudes. This results in a paradoxical warming of the arctic regions and massive cooling of the mid latitudes. The thin atmosphere mass above the poles allows heat escape to accelerate.

What we see today is a natural and normal presentation of the earth entering a cooling phase. With Solar influence now slated to be very low for the next 30-60 years our cooling is just beginning.

As we near the new thermal equilibrium of the earths new energy input/output levels, the zones will return to what we have seen as normal over recent years. When that happens, the poles will freeze over rapidly and glaciation will resume. Many Northern Hemisphere glaciers have already begun to increase in size. The ice mass on Greenland has tripled in just three years.

This is just the beginning..

So you say the ice mass in Greenland has tripled in 3 years? LOL Silly Billy, what you pulled out of your ass should stink even to you. There are 684,000 cubic miles of ice in Greenland, so you are stating either it increased by 1,368,000 cubic miles, or that it was only 226,000 cubic miles in 2014. Either way that is an impossible amount of snow for three years.

A visual depiction of how much ice Greenland is losing
A visual depiction of how much ice Greenland is losing
Posted on 27 April 2010 by John Cook
I'm talking at the University of Queensland next week so I thought I might use Skeptical Science to test-drive a new visual metaphor. Sometimes in the climate debate, we get a bit lost in the data and statistical analysis, forgetting the sheer scale of the impact we're having on our climate. A vivid example is the amount of ice that Greenland is currently losing. When scientists talk about ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet, they refer to gigatonnes of ice. One gigatonne is one billion tonnes. To get a picture of how large this is, imagine a block of ice one kilometre high by one kilometer wide by one kilometre deep (okay, the edges are actually 1055 metres long as ice is slightly less dense than water but you get the idea). Borrowing from alien invasion movies, the scale is well illustrated by comparing a gigatonne block of ice to a famous, historical landmark like the Empire State Building:

How much ice is Greenland losing? This is monitored by satellites which have measured changes in gravity around the ice sheet over the last decade (Velicogna 2009). In 2002 to 2003, the Greenland ice sheet was losing mass at a rate of 137 gigatonnes per year.

However, the rate of ice loss has more than doubled in less than a decade. The rate of ice loss over the 2008 to 2009 period was 286 gigatonnes per year.

This is a vivid reminder that global warming isn't a statistical abstraction cooked up in a climate lab. Greenland is just one example of the physical realities of climate change. On the other side of the planet, Antarctica is also losing ice at an accelerating rate. All over the globe, glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate.

It's also a reminder of the massive amount of inertia at play in our climate. It takes time for the massive Greenland ice sheet to respond to warming. But this inertia is not our friend. Now that Greenland is losing ice at an accelerating rate, it's not like we can throw a rope around the ice sheet and hold it back. The steadily accelerating ice loss from Greenland is an ominous reminder that our actions now will have effects long into the future.

Clouds


Ureka!!!!!! Scientist just found out clouds cover Greenland!!!




.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ever note how rocks goes about placing "funny" ratings on things...laughing like a monkey in a tree about things he doesn't even begin to understand...of course, relying on folks like cook goes a long way towards explaining why he is reduced to laughing like a gibbering idiot rather than actually supporting his position with anything like actual observed measurements.

The little blue boxes were pretty though..I can understand how a small mind might be fooled by them...you know...pretty colors and all..

I call them shit pellets...That's about all his bump of my liked count is good for...

 

[Billy_Bob]

And as usual the liar cook is wrong again...

That chart just shows surface mass balance, which is snowfall minus melt. Snowfall is increasing due to warmer air holding more moisture, which the chart shows.

However, the chart does _not_ include glacier calving, which has accelerated massively, and which is causing the ice loss to accelerate.

By leaving that out, Billy is lying by omission.

He may or may not have known that. But he knows it now, and he'll still lie about it deliberately. Cook is scrupulously honest, while Billy and pals are all pathological liars.

LOL

You missed that the ice deposited is 300 times the ice loss this year alone.... But then your agenda is paramount so lying about it is OK for you...

 

[Old Rocks]

And as usual the liar cook is wrong again...

That chart just shows surface mass balance, which is snowfall minus melt. Snowfall is increasing due to warmer air holding more moisture, which the chart shows.

However, the chart does _not_ include glacier calving, which has accelerated massively, and which is causing the ice loss to accelerate.

By leaving that out, Billy is lying by omission.

He may or may not have known that. But he knows it now, and he'll still lie about it deliberately. Cook is scrupulously honest, while Billy and pals are all pathological liars.

LOL

You missed that the ice deposited is 300 times the ice loss this year alone.... But then your agenda is paramount so lying about it is OK for you...

Silly little twit, ice does not get deposited. Snow does, and if it does not melt, over the years it become compressed to ice. And that figure you just gave is just plain insane. LOL

 

[SSDD]

And as usual the liar cook is wrong again...

That chart just shows surface mass balance, which is snowfall minus melt. Snowfall is increasing due to warmer air holding more moisture, which the chart shows.

However, the chart does _not_ include glacier calving, which has accelerated massively, and which is causing the ice loss to accelerate.

By leaving that out, Billy is lying by omission.

He may or may not have known that. But he knows it now, and he'll still lie about it deliberately. Cook is scrupulously honest, while Billy and pals are all pathological liars.

LOL

You missed that the ice deposited is 300 times the ice loss this year alone.... But then your agenda is paramount so lying about it is OK for you...

Silly little twit, ice does not get deposited. Snow does, and if it does not melt, over the years it become compressed to ice. And that figure you just gave is just plain insane. LOL

Reduced to picking fly specks out of the pepper...how sad for you..