Polar Ice Melting Is Proof of Manmade Climate Change

[Donald H]

the only fact that has ever come to light is the fact that not one scientist living or dead has ever PROVEN that climate change is man made

No science has ever proven that the Christian god doesn't exist either, and likely never will. No branch of science will even try.

Science relies on the preponderance evidence and then asks the population to accept the evidence without preconceived bias.

You're been granted the courtesy of my reply but it's not provided for your benefit alone. You are an ignorant uneducated schlunk who can only be used to make a necessary point.

 

[jc456]

Science relies on the preponderance evidence

so when will you show the evidence? son of a bitch, no one has been successful at providing that. Just throw money at something in a model.

 

[Donald H]

There ARE NO PROOFS in the natural sciences. There is only evidence but absolute mountains of evidence indicate that the observed warming over the last 50 years is due to human GHG emissions.

Take some comfort in the fact that they are not arguing the 'con' side nearly as much as they are reaching out for answers.

I'm pretty sure you will understand, as do many who take the 'pro' side.

Otherwise, it's a fool's game to try to convince fools.

 

[jc456]

There is only evidence but absolute mountains of evidence indicate that the observed warming over the last 50 years is due to human GHG emissions.

post one.

 

[jc456]

Take some comfort in the fact that they are not arguing the 'con' side nearly as much as they are reaching out for answers.

I'm pretty sure you will understand, as do many who take the 'pro' side.

Otherwise, it's a fool's game to try to convince fools.

I’m arguing you can’t post one part of the planet where climate changed

 

[Crick]

Take some comfort in the fact that they are not arguing the 'con' side nearly as much as they are reaching out for answers.

I'm pretty sure you will understand, as do many who take the 'pro' side.

Otherwise, it's a fool's game to try to convince fools.

I can't say I find your optimism all that convincing. I've been on this forum for eight years and there are several deniers that have been here the entire time. I have seen no one convert from doubt to scientific certainty. The deniers have not changed their tune in all that time save to abandon one absurd conspiracy theory to take on another one. Given no valid science available to support them their core charge is that the climate scientists of the world have manufactured the whole thing in a perfectly organized and perfectly secure conspiracy which has never been demonstrated nor confessed to. They do this to get rich from research grants (because they're all liberals), to gain power over others (because they're all liberals) or simply to destroy the world (because they're all liberals).

 

[jc456]

I can't say I find your optimism all that convincing. I've been on this forum for eight years and there are several deniers that have been here the entire time. I have seen no one convert from doubt to scientific certainty. The deniers have not changed their tune in all that time save to abandon one absurd conspiracy theory to take on another one. Given no valid science available to support them their core charge is that the climate scientists of the world have manufactured the whole thing in a perfectly organized and perfectly secure conspiracy which has never been demonstrated nor confessed to. They do this to get rich from research grants (because they're all liberals), to gain power over others (because they're all liberals) or simply to destroy the world (because they're all liberals).

Cause no one provides any scientific evidence

 

[Cellblock2429]

Allow me to explain in small words.

Global warming started in about 1850 when the Industrial Revolution dramatically increased the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum). That burning took carbon dioxide (CO2) that had been sequestered (trapped) in the ground and put it in the atmosphere.

When light from the sun shines on the surface of the Earth, it is absorbed there and warms the planet. The warm planet radiates away its heat as infrared light (IR). CO2 absorbs IR and slows its escape to space. On a planet with no CO2 in the atmosphere, that radiated IR would escape directly to space. If the Earth had no gases absorbing IR, the temperature would be almost 50 Fahrenheit degrees colder than it is. Instead, that warmed CO2 reradiates its energy as more IR which usually gets reabsorbed by other CO2 molecules and also transfers some of its thermal energy to other gases in the air as well as to the land and the ocean through direct conduction (contact). The IR energy eventually ends up either back in the Earth itself, or finally escapes to space. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the longer it takes that IR to escape and the warmer the Earth will become.

From the time of the first appearance of humans 200,000 years ago till the Industrial Revolution, humans have lived on a planet with 280 ppm (parts per million) of CO2. CO2 released by burning coal and oil have now raised that value to 420 ppm. That additional CO2 in the atmosphere has caused the planet to warm significantly with more to come even if we were to immediately stop putting out CO2. That warming is having lots of different harmful effects that hurt plants and animals and humans in a variety of ways.

In a perfect example of the American Way, it has been proposed that businesses will do the best job of reducing and eliminating greenhouse gas emissions if we simply encourage them to move in that direction and then let them find their own means of doing so. That is the purpose of a carbon tax.

Questions?

/——-/ Where did you get the cut & paste? Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha

 

[expat_panama]

If there are specific details missing in the link then you should do the research to find answers...

--and so the burden of proof falls on me? Look, I'm not the guy advocating AGW. I don't have to prove or disprove anything. I am asking a very basic question here --namely, what mass is heating up according to what temperature readings?

Nobody seems to know.

 

[expat_panama]

...Climate scientists provide the 'group' that is pro with their thinking...

My guess is that if I pointed out that there are many "climate scientists" who disagreed w/ the AGW premise, you'd most probably say that those guys were being dishonest (or worse), while the honest ones were ALL pro AGW. Every single one of them w/ absolutely no exceptions.

 

[expat_panama]

my question.

Ur asking too? That makes two of us waiting for answers.

 

[mamooth]

The Left hate science and are too stupid to think and use basic logic.

I know that your sore-loser fascist cult orders you to proclaim your butthurt and stupidity across every topic, but no one is forcing you at gunpoint to obey that command. Any of you can freely choose to _not_ to be cult imbeciles. So why don't any of you choose that course?

Red Planet Heats Up: Ice Age Ending on Mars

A non-moron would have read the article to find out _why_ that was the case. You didn't. You just saw the title and went "DERP! SAME THING MAKE ERF WARM! DERP!". And then the rest of the cult lapdogs started yapping in unison. You know, the usual.

Now, those of us who did read it saw that it was due to orbital cycles of Mars. Since Mars and Earth do not share the same orbit, that means the end of the Martian ice age has nothing to do with climate on Earth.

The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1300 and 1850. Since then the earth has been warming back up and the accumulated ice built up over that time period has been melting.

The LIA was totally over by 1850, in the sense that temperatures were higher then than they were before the start of the LIA. Thus, it would take stupidity above and beyond the cause to claim that "recovery from the LIA is causing the current global warming."

Deniers, you all know what to do now. Deflection shields to maximum. Make personal attacks and post dumb memes. Ask intellectually dishonest rhetorical questions that you'll ignore any answers to. The cult commands it of you, after all.

 

[mamooth]

My guess is that if I pointed out that there are many "climate scientists" who disagreed w/ the AGW premise, you'd most probably say that those guys were being dishonest (or worse), while the honest ones were ALL pro AGW. Every single one of them w/ absolutely no exceptions.

Well, no.

You need understand that most people don't think like you do. You think the fanatical tribal behavior that you engage in is engaged in by everyone, but that's not the case. We are not like you.

 

[mamooth]

I am asking a very basic question here --namely, what mass is heating up according to what temperature readings?

The surface air temperature, according to these amazing devices called "thermometers" all across the earth.

The ocean temperatures, according, again, to those magic thermometers.

The tropospheric temperatures, as measured by weather balloons and satellites.

The mass of the rock and soil of the earth near the surface.

Air, earth, water -- I think that covers it all.

Nobody seems to know.

And by "everyone", you seem to mean "yourself".

 

[Weatherman2020]

I know that your sore-loser fascist cult orders you to proclaim your butthurt and stupidity across every topic, but no one is forcing you at gunpoint to obey that command. Any of you can freely choose to _not_ to be cult imbeciles. So why don't any of you choose that course?


A non-moron would have read the article to find out _why_ that was the case. You didn't. You just saw the title and went "DERP! SAME THING MAKE ERF WARM! DERP!". And then the rest of the cult lapdogs started yapping in unison. You know, the usual.

Now, those of us who did read it saw that it was due to orbital cycles of Mars. Since Mars and Earth do not share the same orbit, that means the end of the Martian ice age has nothing to do with climate on Earth.


The LIA was totally over by 1850, in the sense that temperatures were higher then than they were before the start of the LIA. Thus, it would take stupidity above and beyond the cause to claim that "recovery from the LIA is causing the current global warming."

Deniers, you all know what to do now. Deflection shields to maximum. Make personal attacks and post dumb memes. Ask intellectually dishonest rhetorical questions that you'll ignore any answers to. The cult commands it of you, after all.

So is Mars warming due to Trump?

 

[expat_panama]

The surface air temperature, according to these amazing devices called "thermometers" all across the earth.

The ocean temperatures, according, again, to those magic thermometers.

The tropospheric temperatures, as measured by weather balloons and satellites.

The mass of the rock and soil of the earth near the surface.

Air, earth, water -- I think that covers it all.


And by "everyone", you seem to mean "yourself".

Please understanding that I'm not saying ur wrong, but it's simply that I'm asking how we know the temps of what mass so we know the mass is heating. Sure, there are lots of good ways of measuring temperatures, so what are the temperatures of what mass that tell us that the mass is heating.

It's like you could say that the mass is the mass of the earth and its average temperature in 2021 was 14C and all of the 1,000 temperature readings in the past were 13C or less. I would find that informative and I'd have something to work w/.

 

[expat_panama]

Well, no.

You need understand that most people don't think like you do. You think the fanatical tribal behavior that you engage in is engaged in by everyone, but that's not the case. We are not like you.

OK I'm a bad guy, but my being a bad guy doesn't change the fact that if we don't know what mass is heating up in accordance w/ any known temperatures, then we can't say that AGW has any reasonable basis. That's why I'm asking what mass is heating in accordance w/ what temps.

Hey, if u don't know that's ok. I don't know, lots of people don't know.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Climate change has been working since Genesis.

According to Dr. David Marcus, "Genesis" doesn't work!

 

[jc456]

--and so the burden of proof falls on me? Look, I'm not the guy advocating AGW. I don't have to prove or disprove anything. I am asking a very basic question here --namely, what mass is heating up according to what temperature readings?

Nobody seems to know.

No one does

 

[flacaltenn]

The Left hate science and are too stupid to think and use basic logic.

Red Planet Heats Up: Ice Age Ending on Mars​

Red Planet Heats Up: Ice Age Ending on Mars

Mars is emerging from an ice age, a finding that could shed light on the past and future climates of both Mars and Earth, researchers say.

www.space.com

And if by chance anyone is interested in science and not being a submissive sheeple to Greta:

The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1300 and 1850. Since then the earth has been warming back up and the accumulated ice built up over that time period has been melting.

Pretty sure this work does not say that Mars has a GHouse problem. It has a "gimpy" orbit problem. Because there's only a comparison to the CURRENT theory of how over the past 500,000 yrs - the Earth has experienced 4 distinct icing and warming cycles. That THEORY relies on Milankovich cycles which are periodic changes in Earth orbit due to solar system dynamics causing periods that limit solar insolation TO START an Ice Age.

And that's the total sum of the "comparison". Nothing TRULY about atmospheric physics or changes in atmospheric composition.

Of course Milankovich cycles really only explain how we got INTO those 4 Ice Ages and not how ice flows a mile deep melted QUICKER than they accumulated as CO2 went BACK into the atmosphere during the melt.