It's still going up boys and girls

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,569
Points
2,050
You're a fucking idiot. Imagine a tank of water. It has a pipe at the bottom that is releasing 100 gallons per minute. Another pipe at the top that is adding 99 gallons per minute. What happens?

I didn't know that it snows at the BOTTOM of the glacier, thanks for clearing that up.

:auiqs.jpg:
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
1,704
Points
290
Location
N/A


NASA and NOAA both lost their credibility when they were caught red handed fabricating data.

Trump tried to purge the organization of the lying bastards but it looks like they are back under Joe Dufus.

They need to learn how to calibrate their satellite temperature senors. They make stupid claims of .5 Degree F temperature changes but their sensors are +/- 4-6 Degrees F.


Let's see some links discussing how NASA and NOAA were caught red-handed fabricating data.
Let's see some links supporting your claims(lies) ...
Here you go: AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC

Now let's see your reports of NASA and NOAA being caught red-handed fabricating data.
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
417
Reaction score
320
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
At's a purty piece o' sheetmetal.

Which blows your claims out of the water.

Thank you very much.

And what claim would that be? That there are no aircraft buried under the ice in Antarctica? I can't say as I recall ever saying such a thing. Perhaps you're confusing me with some other bald, sexy, old fart.

No, that the Greenland ice sheet is melting away. The facts are it is stable, trending towards accretion.

You've been on this board a long time. You KNOW that answer is as stupid as stupid gets. Perhaps you ought to let Stryder50 answer this one on his own. Although, if that's the same answer you, Stryder50, were going to give. Don't bother.
Westwall's answer is the same as mine would have been, only he posted earlier than I could have. And since he got it right, I didn't see value in echoing his reply.

IIRC, Dan Brown made extensive reference to that glass pyramid in one of his novels, IIRC it might have been in "Angels & Demons". But as the French say "large deal"!

Just underscores the hubris and arrogance common to you Leftist-loonies(socialists=communists) whom haven't a clue about nature or the environment. Likely based on fact that most pro-ACC/AGW fools/tools/idiots are urban dwelling, concrete pounding, 'city slickers' whom never get dirt under their fingernails having no real connection to the growing things of this planet. The sort that think food comes from the grocery store and haven't a clue where it starts, or how to grow such if their life depended upon it (a.k.a. the assorted social parasites we have to tolerate).

While I'm inclined to leave the computer on and may not always close the page of any given website/forum, doesn't mean I'm here 24/7 in front of the screen. Right now we are experiencing an exceptional early and warm Spring and the South facing backyard of my country residence is undergoing a growth boom of those "billions of self-expanding, self-replicating, biological carbon sequestration units" know as green plants. I'm busy with wacking and mowing down some of the excess growth, pruning, and tilling soil of our few garden plots to prep for upcoming planting.

Wife and I grow a lot of what we eat this time of year (organically) and one other project is consideration of whether or not to restock my honeybee hives - last colonies having died off or absconded. We live in the heart of a dairy and berry agriculture area and sometimes the insecticide use doesn't set well with my bee colonies.

We also have a grove on the south end of oak and maple, a few apple and pear trees, some grape vines, and some blueberry bushes. So collectively we are covering our "carbon footprint" and that of a few others. This at cost and labor of our own, with no "tax credits" of other compensation from the guv'mint/taxpayers, even though we do more environmental good than most of the wacko-loonies whom rail on about "climate change" but do nothing in terms of "skin in the game".

So understand if I get short on patience with phonies like "Crick" whom contribute nothing other than hot air about something they are clueless about, or do nothing of real substance to deal with.
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
417
Reaction score
320
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
I've been using that photo for an avatar for several years and no one had ever mentioned it. Stryder50 was the first to ever mention the photo at all. Now back to the topic.

Are you actually attempting to claim that because snow over 70 years or so buried some WWII planes that the region is not suffering a net loss of ice mass? If so, yes, that was stupid as stupid gets.








For loss to occur, you first have to turn off the supply. 268 feet of supply is pretty significant.
To get about 268 feet of ice over fifty years time would require from 2-4,000 feet of snowfall to compact into ice. Hardly a sign of worrisome "global warming".
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
70,727
Reaction score
25,561
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
You're a fucking idiot. Imagine a tank of water. It has a pipe at the bottom that is releasing 100 gallons per minute. Another pipe at the top that is adding 99 gallons per minute. What happens?






You don't get 268 feet of ice. That's what.
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
417
Reaction score
320
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
There are a whole lot of experts in many different fields who disagree with you. I know you're not so silly as to think you're smarter than all of them nor so naive as to think that many people would willfully lie to the public. So why do you say things like that? The truth may be unpleasant, but, as we all know, ignoring it will only make it worse.





They all have one thing in common. They make their money from so called green companies.

Thus their opinions are biased towards their making money.

Ergo, they lie.

Your claim is ludicrous.
Not really!

There is little funding for research to prove things are normal and no concern for alarm.

But for alarmists and "data" to support political agendas of social, economic, and political "correctives" for a problem that doesn't exist, but to which many think does and needs "fixing", the wells of guv'mint funding~deficit/debt~ are bottomless it would seem.
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
417
Reaction score
320
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA


NASA and NOAA both lost their credibility when they were caught red handed fabricating data.

Trump tried to purge the organization of the lying bastards but it looks like they are back under Joe Dufus.

They need to learn how to calibrate their satellite temperature senors. They make stupid claims of .5 Degree F temperature changes but their sensors are +/- 4-6 Degrees F.


Let's see some links discussing how NASA and NOAA were caught red-handed fabricating data.
Let's see some links supporting your claims(lies) ...
Here you go: AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC

Now let's see your reports of NASA and NOAA being caught red-handed fabricating data.

Climate change hoax collapses as Michael Mann’s bogus “hockey stick” graph defamation lawsuit dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia

08/26/2019 / By Mike Adams
...

For the past two decades, much of the hysteria about global warming — later re-labeled “climate change” — has been based on the so-called “hockey stick” graph produced by Michael Mann. The graph, shown below, has been used by the IPCC, the media and governments to push global warming hysteria to the point of mass mental illness, where Democrat presidential candidates claim humanity only has 12 years remaining before a climate apocalypse will somehow destroy the planet.


But the hockey stick graph is a fraud. A man-made computer software algorithm generated it, and the algorithm is rigged to produce a hockey stick shape no matter what data were entered. Like everything else found in the rigged world of “climate science,” the hockey stick graph was a fraud the day it was generated.

Michael Mann didn’t like being called a fraud by his critics, so he sued them for defamation. And late last week, one of those lawsuits was concluded by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, which threw out Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Tim Ball. But there’s more. According to Principia-Scientific:
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a tip of the "iceberg" so to speak ...
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
417
Reaction score
320
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
A reminder, my posts on this thread #147 and #148 on page 8 show that charts of CO2 and average global temperatures were both higher in the distant past of Earth's natural history (pre-humans and industrialization) yet resulted in no "destruction of Earth" per delusional claims of the pro-ACC/AGW "gorebots" hysteria.

They also show that there was no direct linkage of CO2 levels being a cause of the higher average global temperatures.

Would seem that "Crick" and a few others here flunked their basic science courses during their K-12 education and/or later college courses. No surprise, them being idiots.
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,569
Points
2,050
A reminder, my posts on this thread #147 and #148 on page 8 show that charts of CO2 and average global temperatures were both higher in the distant past of Earth's natural history (pre-humans and industrialization) yet resulted in no "destruction of Earth" per delusional claims of the pro-ACC/AGW "gorebots" hysteria.

They also show that there was no direct linkage of CO2 levels being a cause of the higher average global temperatures.

Would seem that "Crick" and a few others here flunked their basic science courses during their K-12 education and/or later college courses. No surprise, them being idiots.

He completely ignored your two posts and also has ignored my repeated postings of a number of published science research showing that there is a long CO2 lag behind temperature changes.

We are dealing with a brainwashed alleged engineer.
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
417
Reaction score
320
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
A reminder, my posts on this thread #147 and #148 on page 8 show that charts of CO2 and average global temperatures were both higher in the distant past of Earth's natural history (pre-humans and industrialization) yet resulted in no "destruction of Earth" per delusional claims of the pro-ACC/AGW "gorebots" hysteria.

They also show that there was no direct linkage of CO2 levels being a cause of the higher average global temperatures.

Would seem that "Crick" and a few others here flunked their basic science courses during their K-12 education and/or later college courses. No surprise, them being idiots.

He completely ignored your two posts and also has ignored my repeated postings of a number of published science research showing that there is a long CO2 lag behind temperature changes.

We are dealing with a brainwashed alleged engineer.
EXACTLY!

These so-called "environmentalists" tend to be phonies with little real knowledge or experience in real science or environmental activities, rather they are the sort of social parasites living off the benefits of "carbon resources"("fossil fuels") from science/industry/economy that 'clothes~shelters~feeds~supports' them yet have no real knowledge or grasp of how much their existence depends upon that which they would denigrate and remove, yet they could not exist without.

They are classic idiots = defect from birth and usually un-correctable;
... combined with ignorant = lack of knowledge and understanding, which could be correctable if they chose to "learn better".

While it is near hopeless that such as "Crick" and others posting here will ever "learn better", at least we can try to inform and educate others whom are reading on these threads~forums~message boards to better know and understand the issues and data related to the topics under consideration.
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,569
Points
2,050
Here from No Tricks Zone is this interesting post about science research:

Physicists’ Lab Experiment Shows A CO2 Increase From 0.04% To 100% Leads To No Observable Warming

By Kenneth Richard on 1. April 2021

Excerpt:

Two University of Oslo physicists designed several variations of a tabletop experiment trying to confirm the IPCC’s claimed CO2-forcing capacity. Instead they found (a) 100% (1,000,000 ppm) CO2 “heats” air to about the same temperature that non-greenhouse gases (N2, O2 [air], Ar) do, and (b) no significant temperature difference in containers with 0.04% vs. 100% CO2.

Observations, experiments do not support a large forcing effect for CO2


Real-world outdoor observations indicate that even a massive variance in the CO2 concentration, from 0.1% to 75% during a 24-hour period over a mofette field, has no detectable effect in stimulating changes to the surface temperature. Instead, the CO2 concentration changes in response to the temperature.
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
417
Reaction score
320
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
A reminder, my posts on this thread #147 and #148 on page 8 show that charts of CO2 and average global temperatures were both higher in the distant past of Earth's natural history (pre-humans and industrialization) yet resulted in no "destruction of Earth" per delusional claims of the pro-ACC/AGW "gorebots" hysteria.

They also show that there was no direct linkage of CO2 levels being a cause of the higher average global temperatures.

Would seem that "Crick" and a few others here flunked their basic science courses during their K-12 education and/or later college courses. No surprise, them being idiots.

He completely ignored your two posts and also has ignored my repeated postings of a number of published science research showing that there is a long CO2 lag behind temperature changes.

We are dealing with a brainwashed alleged engineer.
BTW - clicking onto his username and then to his "profile" page shows little useful background information on what or whom "he" is other than a birthdate.

This is a classic profile of most internet trolls/scammers/"Leftists" whom lack balls, guts, integrity, or courage to reveal whom and what they are. The "veil of coverage" of scounderals whom are the internet equal of "drive-by shooters" with no guts to be "real men" of accountability. A.K.A. scum and cowards!
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
417
Reaction score
320
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
Look at a globe. Imagine the sun shining on it from the left or right. Look at the edge that faces the sun. The latitudes near the equator get sunlight from almost directly overhead. That surface is approximately perpendicular to the sun. Look at the surface up in Canada and northern Russia. That land is tilted away from the sun. Even at noon, the sun is low and its radiation is spread over far more area than at the equator. It is NOT the ideal place to grow a crop. If you had a choice between equatorial land and northern land to grow crops, you should pick the equator.
Not that many people live on the equatorial regions.

More significantly, the equatorial regions are not that large, nor does the heat and water/rainfall prove so conducive to crop growing.

You might try some temperate region growing of plants/crops yourself to learn something about flora and horticulture.
 
Last edited:

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,569
Points
2,050
Here is one from Jennifer Marohasy:

Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

The comment section is great!

Here is one:



Alan Siddons says

March 13, 2011 at 2:01 pm


“…the energy of these quantum/waves cannot be reabsorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide.”

Critics, be cautious because professor Nahle is articulating and quantifying what is already known about so-called greenhouse gases. A US Department of Energy document says the same, although much more informally.

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
So much for recycling…
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
66,069
Reaction score
13,906
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
So much for recycling…

Bad link.
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
417
Reaction score
320
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
Ever since the Earth became a planet, it has undergone "climate change" as it's hydrosphere and resulting biospheres have developed.

In earliest stages there was next to no oxygen(O2) in the atmosphere and hence little prospect of fauna/animal lifeforms. It took nearly two+ billion years of gradual conversion of a nitrogen and carbon dioxide rich atmosphere to produce enough oxygen to foster animal/fauna life-forms and start the symbiosis of flora~fauna we've come to know about 4+ billion years later.

This planet's "climate" is an average of about a dozen various climatic zones/regions in a constant state of flux~change. Earth's climate is not like the thermostat in your home which can be set to an ideal temperature and left there. The climate of this planet is always in a state of change and during the past half million years or so has spent about 80+% of the time in ice ages/glaciations; either going into or out of when not settled and bottomed out in such COLD. Those warm periods have been brief in comparrision and we should accept and enjoy what we have now rather than tinker and "geo-engineer" towards pushing into the next ice age of COLD!

EXCERTS:
...
Earth's atmosphere has changed much since its formation as primarily a hydrogen atmosphere, and has changed dramatically on several occasions—for example, the Great Oxidation Event 2.4 billion years ago, greatly increased oxygen in the atmosphere from practically no oxygen to levels closer to present day. ...
...
Earliest atmosphere

The first atmosphere consisted of gases in the solar nebula, primarily hydrogen. There were probably simple hydrides such as those now found in the gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn), notably water vapor, methane and ammonia.[41]

Second atmosphere

Outgassing from volcanism, supplemented by gases produced during the late heavy bombardment of Earth by huge asteroids, produced the next atmosphere, consisting largely of nitrogen plus carbon dioxide and inert gases.[41] A major part of carbon-dioxide emissions dissolved in water and reacted with metals such as calcium and magnesium during weathering of crustal rocks to form carbonates that were deposited as sediments. Water-related sediments have been found that date from as early as 3.8 billion years ago.[42]

About 3.4 billion years ago, nitrogen formed the major part of the then stable "second atmosphere". The influence of life has to be taken into account rather soon in the history of the atmosphere because hints of early life-forms appear as early as 3.5 billion years ago.[43] How Earth at that time maintained a climate warm enough for liquid water and life, if the early Sun put out 30% lower solar radiance than today, is a puzzle known as the "faint young Sun paradox".

The geological record however shows a continuous relatively warm surface during the complete early temperature record of Earth – with the exception of one cold glacial phase about 2.4 billion years ago. In the late Archean Eon an oxygen-containing atmosphere began to develop, apparently produced by photosynthesizing cyanobacteria (see Great Oxygenation Event), which have been found as stromatolite fossils from 2.7 billion years ago. The early basic carbon isotopy (isotope ratio proportions) strongly suggests conditions similar to the current, and that the fundamental features of the carbon cycle became established as early as 4 billion years ago.

Ancient sediments in the Gabon dating from between about 2.15 and 2.08 billion years ago provide a record of Earth's dynamic oxygenation evolution. These fluctuations in oxygenation were likely driven by the Lomagundi carbon isotope excursion.[44]

Third atmosphere



Oxygen content of the atmosphere over the last billion years[45][46]

The constant re-arrangement of continents by plate tectonics influences the long-term evolution of the atmosphere by transferring carbon dioxide to and from large continental carbonate stores. Free oxygen did not exist in the atmosphere until about 2.4 billion years ago during the Great Oxygenation Event and its appearance is indicated by the end of the banded iron formations.

Before this time, any oxygen produced by photosynthesis was consumed by the oxidation of reduced materials, notably iron. Molecules of free oxygen did not start to accumulate in the atmosphere until the rate of production of oxygen began to exceed the availability of reducing materials that removed oxygen. This point signifies a shift from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing atmosphere. O2 showed major variations until reaching a steady state of more than 15% by the end of the Precambrian.[47] The following time span from 541 million years ago to the present day is the Phanerozoic Eon, during the earliest period of which, the Cambrian, oxygen-requiring metazoan life forms began to appear.

The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has fluctuated over the last 600 million years, reaching a peak of about 30% around 280 million years ago, significantly higher than today's 21%. Two main processes govern changes in the atmosphere: Plants using carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releasing oxygen, and then plants using some oxygen at night by the process of photorespiration with the remainder of the oxygen being used to breakdown adjacent organic material. Breakdown of pyrite and volcanic eruptions release sulfur into the atmosphere, which oxidizes and hence reduces the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. However, volcanic eruptions also release carbon dioxide, which plants can convert to oxygen. The exact cause of the variation of the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is not known. Periods with much oxygen in the atmosphere are associated with the rapid development of animals. Today's atmosphere contains 21% oxygen, which is great enough for this rapid development of animals.[48]
...
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,569
Points
2,050
“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
So much for recycling…

Bad link.

The quote is valid, I was then a regular visitor of her site, and know Alan through comments exchanged in several blog posting in her website, read that link then and the quote is honest, but governments and the IPCC have since then changed their websites to disappear many of their inconvenient documents since they are detrimental to their CO2 delusion. Go look at the new IPCC website, it has been greatly changed, can't find stuff that used to be easy to find, now very hard to find or has vanished completely.

Alan Siddons is a Radio Chemist.
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
417
Reaction score
320
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
Thing is, for about the past half million years (@500,000 +/-) Earth has been in a cycle where about 80%+ of the time we've either been going into or out of a "glaciation=ice age" with spotty and short lived warm period such as we've had for the past 12-15,000 years (depending on whose count you want to go with).

So question is, would you rather continue being warm or start freezing your nads off ??? !!!

Previous material presented shows that the Earth has yet ot over-heat to the point of destroying the hydrosphere, let alone the biosphere. However, things have gottten cold enough and often enough that anyone (ET) passing by might have caught us in our "snowball Earth" phases.

So essential question is if a couple more degrees of warming is as "dangerous" as a more likely sudden plunge into freezing temps and and another "ice age", which our "geo-engineering" of the environment/atmosphere could easily produce ??? !!!

iu


iu


iu


iu
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top