Vanishing Glaciers Of The Greater Himalaya - Photographic evidence

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
514
Points
155
Anthropogenic global warming is melting the world's glaciers at increasing rates. This poses some grave dangers to the vast populations around the world who are dependent on glacial melt water feeding into the river systems as a supply of water for drinking and agriculture in the dry summer months. The glaciers of the Himalayas are mostly shrinking rapidly and these glaciers are the source of water for hundreds of millions of people in India and China. Some mountaineer photographers recently took current photos of many glaciers from the same spots that photos were taken many decades ago, showing the changes in the ice very clearly. Take a look.

Rivers of ice: Vanishing glaciers
Stunning images from high in the Himalayas - showing the extent by which many glaciers have shrunk in the past 80 years or so - have gone on display at the Royal Geographical Society in central London.

10 October 2011
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Now all you have to do is provide some hard, observed, repeatable evidence that man is responsible.

By the way:

Which physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists?
 
OP
RollingThunder

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
514
Points
155
Now all you have to do is provide some hard, observed, repeatable evidence that man is responsible.

By the way:

Which physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists?
That's been done many times by a number of people, wiredwrong, but you are just tooooooo retarded, confused and brainwashed to get it so nobody is going to waste much time with your nonsense anymore.

But just by the way, you poor silly retard, the greenhouse effect is an observed phenomena. What you call 'physical laws' are attempts to make generalizations about reality based on observed phenomena. Observed phenomena don't need a "physical law" to "predict or support" them to make them real. Nevertheless there are "laws" of radiative physics that do explain the greenhouse effect. Those "laws", developed over the last century and a half or so, are partially based on direct observations of the IR trapping qualities of greenhouse gases.

How do we know that humans are the major cause of global warming?


Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong?


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming


Evidence For Human-Caused Global Warming Is Now 'Unequivocal'


 
Last edited:

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,501
Reaction score
4,139
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Anthropogenic global warming is melting the world's glaciers at increasing rates. This poses some grave dangers to the vast populations around the world who are dependent on glacial melt water feeding into the river systems as a supply of water for drinking and agriculture in the dry summer months. The glaciers of the Himalayas are mostly shrinking rapidly and these glaciers are the source of water for hundreds of millions of people in India and China. Some mountaineer photographers recently took current photos of many glaciers from the same spots that photos were taken many decades ago, showing the changes in the ice very clearly. Take a look.

Rivers of ice: Vanishing glaciers
Stunning images from high in the Himalayas - showing the extent by which many glaciers have shrunk in the past 80 years or so - have gone on display at the Royal Geographical Society in central London.

10 October 2011


So........whats the point s0n?

I laugh my balls off when I see threads like these posted up in this forum!!! Like......what is this? A public service announcement?

Whats the point?


Should we all be "stunned"? And lets say we all are "stunned"? So what? Are you proud of yourself this morning for stunning us? Is that the point?
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,501
Reaction score
4,139
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
How do we know that humans are the major cause of global warming?


Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong?


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming


Evidence For Human-Caused Global Warming Is Now 'Unequivocal'



-------------------------------------------




Like I said over a year ago on here. Nobody cares. Its 2011..........nobody cares about this shit anymore. k00ks like Rolling Thunder fall all over themselves publicizing the alarmist crap for years, and as each year passes, less and less people give a rats ass.


What do psychiatrists call folks who do things over and over and over and over and over and over again yet keep expecting a different outcome?

Mental Disorders and Symptoms Index: A Guide to Symptoms and Diagnostic Criteria





Ooooooops!!!!!!!!


 
Last edited:

Katzndogz

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
65,656
Reaction score
7,474
Points
1,830
Is this like the "adjustments" made to maps to show Greenland glaciers retreating when they were increasing?
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Now all you have to do is provide some hard, observed, repeatable evidence that man is responsible.

By the way:

Which physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists?
[That's been done many times by a number of people, wiredwrong, but you are just tooooooo retarded, confused and brainwashed to get it so nobody is going to waste much time with your nonsense anymore.
Sorry thunder, but it hasn't. That is why you can't simply name the physical laws. Do you think it has gone un noticed that after all this time, you can't simply answer the question? I certainly don't have any problem naming the physical laws that not only don't support a greenhouse effect but explicitly forbid it.

But just by the way, you poor silly retard, the greenhouse effect is an observed phenomena.
Sorry again, but it isn't. Nothing like a greenhouse effect is observed in the open atmosphere. That is why they do those pitiful greenhouse in the bottle experiments that only serve to demonstrate ideal gas laws dealing with pressure and temperature.

You are pathetic thunder. After all this time, still unable to give a straight answer to such a basic question.

Name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.
Quantum mechanics. There, DONE! NEXT QUESTION.
Quantum mechanics is not a physical law konradv. Quantum mechanics certainly depends on physical laws and must conform to physical laws, but is not, in itself, a physical law.

Here, read a bit so that you at least know what a physcial law is and then do feel free to try again. I give you credit though, even though you are wrong, you are doing a better job than thunder.

Laws of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,392
Reaction score
7,252
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 | Climate Change

Just to get a bit of this out of the way, the effective temperature of the Earth with radius r is:

πr2(1 – a)S= 4πr2σT4, or

Teff = [S(1 -a)/4σ]1/4 = 255 K

We can then write an equation for the energy balance of the atmosphere, as

Iup,atmosphere + Idown, atmosphere = Iup, ground

= 2ɛTatmosphere4 = ɛTground4 (also accounting for emissivity), or

Tground = fourthroot (2Tatmosphere)

This temperature is below freezing, and so this shows that if the Earth’s temperature were purely based on the amount of solar radiation it receives, it would be far from habitable. The gap between our present day comfort, and an iceball planet is due to the fact that some of the outgoing infrared radiation is not immediately sent right back to space, but is absorbed by the atmosphere, where some is radiated downward to the surface. This is due to the fact that we have greenhouse gases, which are transparent to incoming solar radiation, but absorb outgoing infrared radiation strongly. The mean surface temperature difference is,

Δ T ≡ Ts – Teff = 33 K

The mean temperature of the Earth’s surface is actually 288 K, which says that the greenhouse gases are responsible for a 33 K enhancement. No longer freezing, but rather comfortable and unique to the solar system.

So what is going with this greenhouse??

The following image shows a spectra at the top of the atmosphere which shows the absorption of photons by CO2, water vapor, ozone, etc.

Of course, Bent is going to throw out some garbage math just as the people who are constantly claiming to disprove Einstein do. Simple fact is that virtually all the physicists on earth state that the greenhouse effect is real, and that by burning fossil fuels, we are raising the temperature of the earth.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
62,145
Reaction score
11,172
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Anthropogenic global warming is melting the world's glaciers at increasing rates. This poses some grave dangers to the vast populations around the world who are dependent on glacial melt water feeding into the river systems as a supply of water for drinking and agriculture in the dry summer months. The glaciers of the Himalayas are mostly shrinking rapidly and these glaciers are the source of water for hundreds of millions of people in India and China. Some mountaineer photographers recently took current photos of many glaciers from the same spots that photos were taken many decades ago, showing the changes in the ice very clearly. Take a look.

Rivers of ice: Vanishing glaciers
Stunning images from high in the Himalayas - showing the extent by which many glaciers have shrunk in the past 80 years or so - have gone on display at the Royal Geographical Society in central London.

10 October 2011
OMG! Glaciers have never shrunk before.
I'm convinced.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,392
Reaction score
7,252
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Well, Todd, I am convinced that you are stupid. Care to try to make and intelligent statement?
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,514
Reaction score
4,553
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
Name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.
Quantum mechanics. There, DONE! NEXT QUESTION.
Quantum mechanics is not a physical law konradv. Quantum mechanics certainly depends on physical laws and must conform to physical laws, but is not, in itself, a physical law.

Here, read a bit so that you at least know what a physcial law is and then do feel free to try again. I give you credit though, even though you are wrong, you are doing a better job than thunder.

Laws of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I said DONE!!! Quantum mechanics IS the answer. Trying to wriggle out of it just further demonstrates your ignorance of physics, as most of us except gslack and yourself, know it!!! :eek:
 

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
29,048
Reaction score
5,458
Points
48
Location
The Bay Area Soviet
Anthropogenic global warming is melting the world's glaciers at increasing rates. This poses some grave dangers to the vast populations around the world who are dependent on glacial melt water feeding into the river systems as a supply of water for drinking and agriculture in the dry summer months. The glaciers of the Himalayas are mostly shrinking rapidly and these glaciers are the source of water for hundreds of millions of people in India and China. Some mountaineer photographers recently took current photos of many glaciers from the same spots that photos were taken many decades ago, showing the changes in the ice very clearly. Take a look.

Rivers of ice: Vanishing glaciers
Stunning images from high in the Himalayas - showing the extent by which many glaciers have shrunk in the past 80 years or so - have gone on display at the Royal Geographical Society in central London.

10 October 2011

and what exactly is the point exactly? aside from Armageddon? :lol:
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 | Climate Change

Just to get a bit of this out of the way, the effective temperature of the Earth with radius r is:

πr2(1 – a)S= 4πr2σT4, or

Teff = [S(1 -a)/4σ]1/4 = 255 K

We can then write an equation for the energy balance of the atmosphere, as

Iup,atmosphere + Idown, atmosphere = Iup, ground

= 2ɛTatmosphere4 = ɛTground4 (also accounting for emissivity), or

Tground = fourthroot (2Tatmosphere)

This temperature is below freezing, and so this shows that if the Earth’s temperature were purely based on the amount of solar radiation it receives, it would be far from habitable. The gap between our present day comfort, and an iceball planet is due to the fact that some of the outgoing infrared radiation is not immediately sent right back to space, but is absorbed by the atmosphere, where some is radiated downward to the surface. This is due to the fact that we have greenhouse gases, which are transparent to incoming solar radiation, but absorb outgoing infrared radiation strongly. The mean surface temperature difference is,

Δ T ≡ Ts – Teff = 33 K

The mean temperature of the Earth’s surface is actually 288 K, which says that the greenhouse gases are responsible for a 33 K enhancement. No longer freezing, but rather comfortable and unique to the solar system.

So what is going with this greenhouse??

The following image shows a spectra at the top of the atmosphere which shows the absorption of photons by CO2, water vapor, ozone, etc.

Of course, Bent is going to throw out some garbage math just as the people who are constantly claiming to disprove Einstein do. Simple fact is that virtually all the physicists on earth state that the greenhouse effect is real, and that by burning fossil fuels, we are raising the temperature of the earth.
Rocks, if your equation is built upon the radius of the earth, why does it present incoming radiation as if it were hitting a flat body with no curvature? Your equation divides incoming radiation by 4 making the surface of the earth a flat surface being irradiated by incoming radiation that is 1/4 the strength of the actual incoming radiation rather than by 2 making it a sphere that is being irradiated across 180 degrees of its surface and dark across 180 degrees of its surface.

Also, is that a derivation of Stefan-Boltzman? If so, which derivation, by whom, based on what, and where is it supported in the physics literature?

How do you expect a formula that doesn't represent the earth as it is to predict temperature with any degree of accuracy? Also, if you apply that formula to any other body in our solar system, the result doesn't even come close to the known reality. It is an ad hoc formula put together to reach a pre determined quantity.

Don't worry rocks, I don't expect you to actually answer my question as we both know that you don't have the slightest understanding of what you posted. If you did, you wouldn't have posted it in the first place.
 
Last edited:

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
I said DONE!!! Quantum mechanics IS the answer. Trying to wriggle out of it just further demonstrates your ignorance of physics, as most of us except gslack and yourself, know it!!! :eek:
Quantum mechanics is not the answer konradv. You are way over your head here and you just sound silly trying ot shit out an answer. I can tell you which physical laws say that no greenhouse effect as described by warmists is possible easily enough. The law of conservation of energy for one. Also the first and second laws of thermodynamics. If a physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists, why is it that none of you guys can name it.

A hypothesis not supported by, or predicted by the laws of physics isn't worth the effort it takes to state it. So tell me konradv, which law of physics specifically supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists?

And don't make me laugh by calling me ignorant of physics when you shout out "quantum physics" in answer to a question that requires the naming of a law of physics. How much more ignorant could you possibly be?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top