Global Warmers Stopped by Arctic Ice

[frigidweirdo]

The first point is I wasn't comparing Venus with the Earth. I was comparing Venus with Mercury.

The point being that Mercury hardly has an atmosphere, heat hits Mercury's surface and then bounces right out of there. On Venus it doesn't happen.[/qipte]

You don't think that mercury, due to its proximity to the sun absorbs energy?....and I don't guess you are aware that the albedo (doubt that you even know what the word means) is 0.75...a mirror that reflects perfectly would have an albedo of 1....care to hazard a guess as to what that means?....only 25% of the energy coming in from the sun actually penetrates the atmosphere of venus...the rest is reflected...that is why venus is so bright in the sky... earth;s albedo, by contrast is about 0.31 meaning that almost 70% of the light coming in from the sun penetrates the atmosphere.

No Greenhouse Gases? Uranus is blue because of Methane. The outer layer of the planet. Very little of Uranus's heat gets out.

You really don't spend much time actually thinking....do you. You grab on to random facts and then assume that you know what you are talking about.

Lets begin with the fact that uranus is 17 times more distant from the sun....that means that it gets very little energy from the sun....then there is the fact that the composition of the atmosphere of uranus is 83% hydrogen...15% helium....and 2% methane....then there is the fact that the albedo (remember that word) of uranus is 0.51 which means that only 49 % of the energy of the sun which is 17 times further away than earth actually penetrates the atmosphere....

The average temperature of Uranus is -200 Celsius. It doesn't have a proper surface like those planets closer to the sun, so it's different to measure this stuff anyway. Uranus's core is not as warm as other planets at 5000 K, which is colder than the Earth's which is about 6000K.

So saying Uranus is warmer at the bottom of its troposphere is a little weird

And yet, it is true...and it is not due to any greenhouse effect...it is due to the density of the atmosphere... As to the temp of venus at the same atmospheric pressure of earth...here, have a look. The altitude at which the atmospheric pressure on venus is about 55Km....look at the temperature there...around 292K
that is about 18.8C....then compensate for the difference in incoming radiation because venus is closer to the sun and you end up with a temperature of about 16C which is about the temperature here on earth... A CO2 induced greenhouse effect is nonsense and it does not exist...the observed facts prove this true.

If you're going to start being nasty, I'm not going to bother. You want to tell me I don't spend too much time thinking, that's your problem, but it's an attack.

So how about this. You format your post so I can actually read it properly, and you change it to take out the attacks, and then I might respond to it.

But if you want your response to include attacks instead of debate, that's fine, you don't get a proper response from me.

 

[jc456]

Getting back to the thread topic again, Northabout is cruising eastwards fast now, approaching the Lena River delta. Once they work through the low-concentration ice in that area, it's clear sailing the rest of the way. They won't be the first ship to circumnavigate the North Pole in one season, but they might end up finishing the earliest.

And best as I can tell, the first circumnavigation of the North Pole in one season was done by Borge Ousland in 2010. It's something that wasn't possible until recently.

Why don't you post a link?

 

[Weatherman2020]

They are still stuck in ice. Ice will begin growing soon.

You did see the date of Aug 12 on that, right?

Now, what day is today?

And you do know the ice minimum is in September, right?

Sweet Jeebus, you're stupid.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

Yeah, Peary could have circumnavigated the pole but he had other things going.

Again, sweet jeebus, you're stupid.

They started June 19. It's August 17. They aren't even 1/3 into their voyage. Ice begins growing in 3 weeks.
Do the math.

And stupid is saying people had the sailing technology a hundred years ago like we do today, stupid.

LOL.. The ice has already started to grow.... Ambient day time temps are now below 30 degrees F... and night time temps are 20 deg F,,,,

Looking forward to the inevitable rescue of the crew stranded on ice.

 

[Old Rocks]

They are still stuck in ice. Ice will begin growing soon.

You did see the date of Aug 12 on that, right?

Now, what day is today?

And you do know the ice minimum is in September, right?

Sweet Jeebus, you're stupid.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

Yeah, Peary could have circumnavigated the pole but he had other things going.

Again, sweet jeebus, you're stupid.

They started June 19. It's August 17. They aren't even 1/3 into their voyage. Ice begins growing in 3 weeks.
Do the math.

And stupid is saying people had the sailing technology a hundred years ago like we do today, stupid.

LOL.. The ice has already started to grow.... Ambient day time temps are now below 30 degrees F... and night time temps are 20 deg F,,,,

Looking forward to the inevitable rescue of the crew stranded on ice.

Looking forward to you actually graduating to three working brain cells. From here on out, the Northabout will have a nice voyage.

 

[Billy_Bob]

They are still stuck in ice. Ice will begin growing soon.

You did see the date of Aug 12 on that, right?

Now, what day is today?

And you do know the ice minimum is in September, right?

Sweet Jeebus, you're stupid.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

Yeah, Peary could have circumnavigated the pole but he had other things going.

Again, sweet jeebus, you're stupid.

They started June 19. It's August 17. They aren't even 1/3 into their voyage. Ice begins growing in 3 weeks.
Do the math.

And stupid is saying people had the sailing technology a hundred years ago like we do today, stupid.

LOL.. The ice has already started to grow.... Ambient day time temps are now below 30 degrees F... and night time temps are 20 deg F,,,,

Looking forward to the inevitable rescue of the crew stranded on ice.

The pack Ice is already forming around them.. if they don't get out soon they will be trapped. The Russian ice breaker captain gave them last warning to leave today. The ice breaker ship is about to leave them and return because they don't want to get packed in the ice flow..

 

[mamooth]

LOL.. The ice has already started to grow....

No, it hasn't. Ice keeps declining until mid-September.

Ambient day time temps are now below 30 degrees F... and night time temps are 20 deg F,,,,

The weather forecasts show green all the time at the Lena River delta. That means slightly above freezing, which the crew confirms in their logs.

Climate Reanalyzer

Remember, it's summer in the high Arctic. At their latitude, they get about 6 hours of twilight, but no full dark night.

Why don't you post a link?

I have, several times. Why don't you look at it? Right now, it shows Northabout cruising east past the Lena delta at 14 kph.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

They started June 19. It's August 17. They aren't even 1/3 into their voyage. Ice begins growing in 3 weeks.
Do the math.

The math says they're a couple days ahead of the other boats who accomplished it.

The math says the NW passage was much more ice-choked in those years. This year, it's wide open.

And stupid is saying people had the sailing technology a hundred years ago like we do today, stupid

A hundred years ago, there were sailing yachts with small motors, like Northabout. They couldn't do what's possible now, because it's only recently that the ice has melted enough to allow it. If had been possible in ye olde days, people would have been out there trying. Adventure sailing isn't a new thing. That's what Amundsen was doing. It took him 3 years just to do the Northwest Passage.

 

[mamooth]

The pack Ice is already forming around them.. if they don't get out soon they will be trapped. The Russian ice breaker captain gave them last warning to leave today. The ice breaker ship is about to leave them and return because they don't want to get packed in the ice flow..

Is someone feeding you this complete bullshit, or is your fraud here original on your part?

If you're not pushing an outright fraud, I'm sure you can show us your sources.

 

[SSDD]

Science and medicine are not synonymous. Medicine is not an exact science as everyone is different and everyone's bodies react to different things differently.

Interesting that you think that...and you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Medicine is a far more exacting science than climate pseudoscience will ever be...and is monitored and policed by orders and orders of magnitude more heavily than climate science is, or will ever be as evidenced by the fact that a doctor can be fined millions and even imprisoned for an error in judgement or an honest mistake..medicine is policed by every individual who partakes of the service and packs of lawyers anxious to exploit any error on the behalf of an individual, an individual's family, or entire classes of people.

But since you seem to believe that climate science is more exacting than medicine I'll bite. Lets begin with some very very VERY basic questions to demonstrate just how exact climate science is when compared to medicine....tell me, what is the exact climate sensitivity to CO2? How much CO2 must be added to the system in order to achieve an average global temperature increase of 0.02 degrees? Exactly how much CO2 is expelled each year by the earth's own CO2 making machinery? What is the exact albedo of the earth?

Can you point to any experiments carried out in climate science that even approach the rigor of a clinical trial in medicine?...and I could go on and on and on....climate science is a circus and anyone who thinks that it is anywhere near as rigorous as the actual science of medicine and the branches of science that it relies on is an unthinking idiot.

 

[SSDD]

If you're going to start being nasty, I'm not going to bother. You want to tell me I don't spend too much time thinking, that's your problem, but it's an attack.

Pointing out that you clearly don't put much thought into the things you say is being nasty?

So how about this. You format your post so I can actually read it properly, and you change it to take out the attacks, and then I might respond to it.

How about this...you point out what you think is an attack...and then tell me why you believe it is an attack...and then we can talk about whether it was justified.

 

[SSDD]

Which means more credibility than anyone from One Nation.

Not sure what that has to do with anything I have said since I have never visited the site and certainly never referenced it.

 

[SSDD]

Doctors can be wrong because symptoms cross over and because Doctors don't know everything.

Really? And the climate is straight forward and predictable and reacts the same way to every thing every time? And there is no doubt that doctors don't know everything...and there is less doubt that climate scientists know far less about the climate than doctors know about your body and what makes it tick.

We don't know everything about how global warming is going to work either.

We have, in fact, barely begun to scratch the surface...climate science is in a place today that is comparable to where medicine was 150 years ago...and yet, people like you believe what they say even when there isn't the fist shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence to back up their claims.

With bodies doctors study the human body, and then make assessments on individual cases to the best of their knowledge.

Really?...so decade long clinical studies are based on the reaction of one human being to one particular stimuli? This is what I mean when I say that you clearly don't put much thought into what you say. You think medicine is one doctor and one patient with one complaint repeated over and over and over?

Scientists studying global warming and such like have only one thing really to study, and they don't need to go off into individual cases.

So you think the climate is only affected by one thing?...and that one thing behaves in the same way all the time and the climate always reacts to it in the same way? Again....did you really put much thought into that claim before you made it? At this point, we can't even identify all the factors that have some effect on the climate or some effect on something else which then in turn affects the climate...and we are completely in the dark as to how much the factors that we do know about actually affect the climate and for how long...

That's not to say they're not wrong. Science has always been a "make a hypothesis and see if it's true" sort of thing.

Observation of the climate is not meshing with the claims based on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...why then has the hypothesis not been disposed of as not true and a new hypothesis put forward. Climate science merely changes the name of the hypothesis and not the hypothesis....global warming...which then became climate change...which then became climate disruption...which will become ?....the underlying hypothesis is the same, just the name is changing...does that sound like sound science and the scientific method to you?...really?

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you're going to start being nasty, I'm not going to bother. You want to tell me I don't spend too much time thinking, that's your problem, but it's an attack.

Pointing out that you clearly don't put much thought into the things you say is being nasty?

So how about this. You format your post so I can actually read it properly, and you change it to take out the attacks, and then I might respond to it.

How about this...you point out what you think is an attack...and then tell me why you believe it is an attack...and then we can talk about whether it was justified.

Well I happen to think it is. So, you can either accept it, or you can just not. I'm not bothered either way.

If you want civilized, respectful debate, get back to me. If you don't, fine.

 

[SSDD]

If you're going to start being nasty, I'm not going to bother. You want to tell me I don't spend too much time thinking, that's your problem, but it's an attack.

Pointing out that you clearly don't put much thought into the things you say is being nasty?

So how about this. You format your post so I can actually read it properly, and you change it to take out the attacks, and then I might respond to it.

How about this...you point out what you think is an attack...and then tell me why you believe it is an attack...and then we can talk about whether it was justified.

Well I happen to think it is. So, you can either accept it, or you can just not. I'm not bothered either way.

If you want civilized, respectful debate, get back to me. If you don't, fine.

Then you should go out and get yourself a pair of big girl panties if you think that is being nasty....or perhaps you are just trying to avoid a discussion that you know you can't win and would prefer to be though of as a pussy than to admit that you were wrong.

 

[SSDD]

Since you are going to run away from the discussion, I thought I would give you just a bit more to think about regarding venus....consider the fact that almost no light reaches the ground on venus....the greenhouse effect requires that shortwave incoming from the sun reach the surface and be re radiated as long wave....if very little light is reaching the surface, where is the long wave radiation required for a greenhouse effect...and secondly, the temperature on the night time side of venus is the same as on the day time side even though night time on venus is equal to about 58 of our days. Since little light reaches the surface, how do you suppose it gets hot enough to drive a greenhouse effect through a night that lasts almost 3000 hours?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Doctors can be wrong because symptoms cross over and because Doctors don't know everything.

Really? And the climate is straight forward and predictable and reacts the same way to every thing every time? And there is no doubt that doctors don't know everything...and there is less doubt that climate scientists know far less about the climate than doctors know about your body and what makes it tick.

We don't know everything about how global warming is going to work either.

We have, in fact, barely begun to scratch the surface...climate science is in a place today that is comparable to where medicine was 150 years ago...and yet, people like you believe what they say even when there isn't the fist shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence to back up their claims.

With bodies doctors study the human body, and then make assessments on individual cases to the best of their knowledge.

Really?...so decade long clinical studies are based on the reaction of one human being to one particular stimuli? This is what I mean when I say that you clearly don't put much thought into what you say. You think medicine is one doctor and one patient with one complaint repeated over and over and over?

Scientists studying global warming and such like have only one thing really to study, and they don't need to go off into individual cases.

So you think the climate is only affected by one thing?...and that one thing behaves in the same way all the time and the climate always reacts to it in the same way? Again....did you really put much thought into that claim before you made it? At this point, we can't even identify all the factors that have some effect on the climate or some effect on something else which then in turn affects the climate...and we are completely in the dark as to how much the factors that we do know about actually affect the climate and for how long...

That's not to say they're not wrong. Science has always been a "make a hypothesis and see if it's true" sort of thing.

Observation of the climate is not meshing with the claims based on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...why then has the hypothesis not been disposed of as not true and a new hypothesis put forward. Climate science merely changes the name of the hypothesis and not the hypothesis....global warming...which then became climate change...which then became climate disruption...which will become ?....the underlying hypothesis is the same, just the name is changing...does that sound like sound science and the scientific method to you?...really?

Actually climate is straight forward and predictable. You just need to have all the information. This is why we don't get weather reports exactly right, but mostly right, it's because we have a lot of the information, but lack some of the smaller information that would be needed. So we set computers to use what we know and what's within the capabilities of the computer, and we get a more or less accurate picture of what the weather will be like.

But the biggest problem isn't with the scientist. The biggest problem is with the media who take what the scientists have done and declare thing outright, when the scientists have merely presented a hypothesis and attempted to prove it right or wrong with science, and then expect to have it peer checked. This is how science moves forwards. But then people pick up on what the media have said, pretend the scientists said it because they can't be bothered to understand how it's all come about, and then when it's wrong, they say it's all wrong, it must be because this thing was wrong (that they didn't understand correctly in the first place).

Of course we're at a stage where we don't know a lot of things. Some things are accepted, mainly because what we see happening appears to go along certain lines.

You claim there isn't evidence. But there is. But you can pretend there isn't. Just because it doesn't prove 100% something, doesn't mean that there isn't enough evidence to know quite a few things about what is happening.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you're going to start being nasty, I'm not going to bother. You want to tell me I don't spend too much time thinking, that's your problem, but it's an attack.

Pointing out that you clearly don't put much thought into the things you say is being nasty?

So how about this. You format your post so I can actually read it properly, and you change it to take out the attacks, and then I might respond to it.

How about this...you point out what you think is an attack...and then tell me why you believe it is an attack...and then we can talk about whether it was justified.

Well I happen to think it is. So, you can either accept it, or you can just not. I'm not bothered either way.

If you want civilized, respectful debate, get back to me. If you don't, fine.

Then you should go out and get yourself a pair of big girl panties if you think that is being nasty....or perhaps you are just trying to avoid a discussion that you know you can't win and would prefer to be though of as a pussy than to admit that you were wrong.

You know what, fuck off.

 

[Weatherman2020]

LOL.. The ice has already started to grow....

No, it hasn't. Ice keeps declining until mid-September.

Ambient day time temps are now below 30 degrees F... and night time temps are 20 deg F,,,,

The weather forecasts show green all the time at the Lena River delta. That means slightly above freezing, which the crew confirms in their logs.

Climate Reanalyzer

Remember, it's summer in the high Arctic. At their latitude, they get about 6 hours of twilight, but no full dark night.

Why don't you post a link?

I have, several times. Why don't you look at it? Right now, it shows Northabout cruising east past the Lena delta at 14 kph.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

They started June 19. It's August 17. They aren't even 1/3 into their voyage. Ice begins growing in 3 weeks.
Do the math.

The math says they're a couple days ahead of the other boats who accomplished it.

The math says the NW passage was much more ice-choked in those years. This year, it's wide open.

And stupid is saying people had the sailing technology a hundred years ago like we do today, stupid

A hundred years ago, there were sailing yachts with small motors, like Northabout. They couldn't do what's possible now, because it's only recently that the ice has melted enough to allow it. If had been possible in ye olde days, people would have been out there trying. Adventure sailing isn't a new thing. That's what Amundsen was doing. It took him 3 years just to do the Northwest Passage.

I'm looking forward to their rescue from the ice in a few weeks.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Doctors can be wrong because symptoms cross over and because Doctors don't know everything.

Really? And the climate is straight forward and predictable and reacts the same way to every thing every time? And there is no doubt that doctors don't know everything...and there is less doubt that climate scientists know far less about the climate than doctors know about your body and what makes it tick.

We don't know everything about how global warming is going to work either.

We have, in fact, barely begun to scratch the surface...climate science is in a place today that is comparable to where medicine was 150 years ago...and yet, people like you believe what they say even when there isn't the fist shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence to back up their claims.

With bodies doctors study the human body, and then make assessments on individual cases to the best of their knowledge.

Really?...so decade long clinical studies are based on the reaction of one human being to one particular stimuli? This is what I mean when I say that you clearly don't put much thought into what you say. You think medicine is one doctor and one patient with one complaint repeated over and over and over?

Scientists studying global warming and such like have only one thing really to study, and they don't need to go off into individual cases.

So you think the climate is only affected by one thing?...and that one thing behaves in the same way all the time and the climate always reacts to it in the same way? Again....did you really put much thought into that claim before you made it? At this point, we can't even identify all the factors that have some effect on the climate or some effect on something else which then in turn affects the climate...and we are completely in the dark as to how much the factors that we do know about actually affect the climate and for how long...

That's not to say they're not wrong. Science has always been a "make a hypothesis and see if it's true" sort of thing.

Observation of the climate is not meshing with the claims based on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...why then has the hypothesis not been disposed of as not true and a new hypothesis put forward. Climate science merely changes the name of the hypothesis and not the hypothesis....global warming...which then became climate change...which then became climate disruption...which will become ?....the underlying hypothesis is the same, just the name is changing...does that sound like sound science and the scientific method to you?...really?

Actually climate is straight forward and predictable. You just need to have all the information. This is why we don't get weather reports exactly right, but mostly right, it's because we have a lot of the information, but lack some of the smaller information that would be needed. So we set computers to use what we know and what's within the capabilities of the computer, and we get a more or less accurate picture of what the weather will be like.

But the biggest problem isn't with the scientist. The biggest problem is with the media who take what the scientists have done and declare thing outright, when the scientists have merely presented a hypothesis and attempted to prove it right or wrong with science, and then expect to have it peer checked. This is how science moves forwards. But then people pick up on what the media have said, pretend the scientists said it because they can't be bothered to understand how it's all come about, and then when it's wrong, they say it's all wrong, it must be because this thing was wrong (that they didn't understand correctly in the first place).

Of course we're at a stage where we don't know a lot of things. Some things are accepted, mainly because what we see happening appears to go along certain lines.

You claim there isn't evidence. But there is. But you can pretend there isn't. Just because it doesn't prove 100% something, doesn't mean that there isn't enough evidence to know quite a few things about what is happening.

Yeah, that's why the climate center was 180 degrees off on their forecast of the El Niño effects last winter. We know so much we can't even tell what's going to happen 3 months out, let alone a century.

 

[jc456]

LOL.. The ice has already started to grow....

No, it hasn't. Ice keeps declining until mid-September.

Ambient day time temps are now below 30 degrees F... and night time temps are 20 deg F,,,,

The weather forecasts show green all the time at the Lena River delta. That means slightly above freezing, which the crew confirms in their logs.

Climate Reanalyzer

Remember, it's summer in the high Arctic. At their latitude, they get about 6 hours of twilight, but no full dark night.

Why don't you post a link?

I have, several times. Why don't you look at it? Right now, it shows Northabout cruising east past the Lena delta at 14 kph.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

They started June 19. It's August 17. They aren't even 1/3 into their voyage. Ice begins growing in 3 weeks.
Do the math.

The math says they're a couple days ahead of the other boats who accomplished it.

The math says the NW passage was much more ice-choked in those years. This year, it's wide open.

And stupid is saying people had the sailing technology a hundred years ago like we do today, stupid

A hundred years ago, there were sailing yachts with small motors, like Northabout. They couldn't do what's possible now, because it's only recently that the ice has melted enough to allow it. If had been possible in ye olde days, people would have been out there trying. Adventure sailing isn't a new thing. That's what Amundsen was doing. It took him 3 years just to do the Northwest Passage.

so curious, as ice melts does it cool the air above?

 

[SSDD]

Actually climate is straight forward and predictable. You just need to have all the information.

The climate is chaotic...to suggest that it is straight forward and predictable is just more evidence that you don't know what the hell you are talking about...and if you think we have anything like all the information, then you really don't have a clue.

This is why we don't get weather reports exactly right, but mostly right, it's because we have a lot of the information, but lack some of the smaller information that would be needed. So we set computers to use what we know and what's within the capabilities of the computer, and we get a more or less accurate picture of what the weather will be like.

Again...you don't have a clue...do you think that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is a "small" thing?...How about the actual albedo of the earth?...how about the actual effect that clouds have on the climate?....or ocean currents....at present, climate science is just guessing regarding all those factors...and those are just the most basic factors...

You claim there isn't evidence. But there is. But you can pretend there isn't. Just because it doesn't prove 100% something, doesn't mean that there isn't enough evidence to know quite a few things about what is happening.

I claim that there is no observed, measured, quantified...that is empirical evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his emissions of so called greenhouse gasses...and there isn't...but if you feel that I am wrong...feel free to provide some....if there were any, I doubt that there would be any place on the internet that a skeptic could go to escape it...it would be front page news all day every day...so go and get some if you think it exists...