Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
are you suggesting there were submarines manufactured back before 1958 that would have had any opportunity to do what was done? That proves absolutely nothing. It proves technology advantages which allowed it. Also, I know that Chicago was once under ice, and now it isn't. Arctic ice melt would remain consistent with a declining ice age. However, I would say, within the last decade the northern hemisphere has cooled.Surely you can see the huge change in our own very short lifetime.
no, the point is you can't connect any dots and are purely acting on someone's wet dream.I guess your point is that you'll be dead so who cares? I have grandchildren to think about, in addition to everyone else on the planet.
we know fking nothing. What we've seen is CO2 trails temperature increase. Plenty of history to show that. Not one piece of data where an increase of CO2 caused any warming of temperatures. And as I and others in here have asked is to see where anyone has done any experiments to test adding 120 PPM of CO2. Why, that again is the lingering escalation into forced CO2 control. With absolutely no evidence.
Ok, I'll play along. Why did the earth transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet ~3 million years ago.Polar ocean currents have nothing at all to do with whether or not the planet is warming or cooling.
Nor is the Antarctic continent at all isolated from global ocean currents.
Your graph shows a current circling the Antarctic land mass, but it is in constant contact and mixing with 3 other major currents shown even in your diagram.
In no way could there be significant polar isolation. Air currents move much too quickly for that due to convection, and water is not going to allow extreme differences due to conduction. The constant rotation of the earth is going to force movement of both wind and water to reduce extremes.
Nor would it matter if I was wrong about polar isolation, because plate tectonics have not changed much in millions of years.
The ice age cycles of 110,000 years can not be due to plate tectonics.
where is the point that the finds show an increase in temperature.Here is wiki on greenhouse experiments/
{...
The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824.[7] The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. John Tyndall was the first to measure the infrared absorption and emission of various gases and vapors. From 1859 onwards, he showed that the effect was due to a very small proportion of the atmosphere, with the main gases having no effect, and was largely due to water vapor, though small percentages of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide had a significant effect.[8] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[9] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[10][11]
...}
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It is NASA has done the greenhouse gas research, and it has been well verified.
{...
Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in longer wavelengths (12–15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)[22]
...}
I guess your point is that you'll be dead so who cares? I have grandchildren to think about, in addition to everyone else on the planet.
are you suggesting there were submarines manufactured back before 1958 that would have had any opportunity to do what was done? That proves absolutely nothing. It proves technology advantages which allowed it. Also, I know that Chicago was once under ice, and now it isn't. Arctic ice melt would remain consistent with a declining ice age. However, I would say, within the last decade the northern hemisphere has cooled.
again, technology didn't allow traversing the arctic until the year it was done. I have read where Vikings had homes on Greenland. They got there by ship.That does not make any sense.
The point is that we can tell the Arctic Ocean has not been open water for tens of thousands of year, by checking the age of the floating ice.
We know it was never open water in the Arctic until 1997.
So clearly we have visual confirmation of global warming, on a huge scale.
Why in the world would you claim the northern hemisphere has at all cooled, when clearly it is recording temperatures much higher than every before?
Greenland has rivers of melt off water flowing into the ocean, that never existed before.
If you mean the northern hemisphere has had some colder weather, that is because with global warming, Arctic weather has more energy and is able to blow further south than it could before. But that is weather, not global temperature.
That does not make any sense.
The point is that we can tell the Arctic Ocean has not been open water for tens of thousands of year, by checking the age of the floating ice.
We know it was never open water in the Arctic until 1997.
So clearly we have visual confirmation of global warming, on a huge scale.
Why in the world would you claim the northern hemisphere has at all cooled, when clearly it is recording temperatures much higher than every before?
Greenland has rivers of melt off water flowing into the ocean, that never existed before.
If you mean the northern hemisphere has had some colder weather, that is because with global warming, Arctic weather has more energy and is able to blow further south than it could before. But that is weather, not global temperature.
where is the point that the finds show an increase in temperature.
An RLC circuit is an electrical circuit consisting of a resistor (R), an inductor (L), and a capacitor (C)
AARGH! STOP IT! Do you have any idea that I used to design global telecom equipment? I don't need told how a capacitor works nor what an RCL circuit does. Geez.
again, technology didn't allow traversing the arctic until the year it was done. I have read where Vikings had homes on Greenland. They got there by ship.
Greenhouse gas effects are not a guess or at all theoretical.
They can be substantiated with miniature lab experiments, because scale does not matter.
These Environmental Wackos have made a ton of money with the shit in shit out scam of computer climate models.ROT. No one can create a model of the Earth's climate system in a computer nor as some miniature that is truly reliable as all of the effects and mechanisms are not well enough understood.
As a person who used to design experiments in a lab, I know all too well that the experiments all too easily just show us what we designed and intended them to, based on our own limited understanding.
hat does not make any sense.
The point is that we can tell the Arctic Ocean has not been open water for tens of thousands of year, by checking the age of the floating ice.
We know it was never open water in the Arctic until 1997.
So clearly we have visual confirmation of global warming, on a huge scale.
It won't matter till your great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandkids come along. Do you honestly think that technology won't be developed to handle whatever issues come up?
again, technology didn't allow traversing the arctic until the year it was done. I have read where Vikings had homes on Greenland. They got there by ship.
These Environmental Wackos have made a ton of money with the shit in shit out scam of computer climate models.
What we have found out with this AGW scam is that money can buy a scientist just like it can buy a politician.
You're doing great -- but dont be so SURE about "what we know". The ice is too recyclable (it's sea ice as opposed to Greenland/Antarctica) to leave great depths to look at ancient ice. It's melts -- it regrows. The OLDEST ice if you can find it is probably less then 20 years in any substantial patch.
You can look back at LAND ice for 10s of thousands. Greenland is MORE reliable for history because Antarctica is a virtual desert, and the yearly ice is extremely thin and you lose time resolution.
So -- 1st earth resource satellites about 1979 saw the ice in the Arctic Sea, We're sure of what happened after,
