WSJ: Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting at Furious Rate, New Study Shows

[JGalt]

Your knee jerk reaction is always to blame the other.

Pssst, guess what? It didn't come from the "wet markets." COVID was an WMD.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm sure these folk have experienced this type of thing before. Sun cycles you know.

The people who discovered and taught you anything you will ever know about sun cycles agree the sun is not causing the current, rapid warming. I am quite sure they would appreciate you keeping their names and their life's work out of your mouth, denier.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Pssst, guess what? It didn't come from the "wet markets." COVID was an WMD.

...now run along and tell someone it's just a flu. Goddamn, you people don't even know what is coming out of your own mouths next do ya?

 

[ding]

The people who discovered and taught you anything you will ever know about sun cycles agree the sun is not causing the current, rapid warming. I am quite sure they would appreciate you keeping their names and their life's work out of your mouth, denier.

That's what happens in an interglacial cycle. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of the bipolar glaciated world we live in. Been that way for the past 3 million years. This is especially true for the northern hemisphere. Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. You have mistakenly attributed global temperature changes to carbon dioxide instead of natural causes. Specifically, long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmmm.

Himalaya's Heat Pump | Earthdata

Publication from NASA ESDIS describing research uses of data from EOSDIS - polluted air over Asia is changing patterns in remote mountain ranges.

earthdata.nasa.gov

Maybe not.

If there is a warming problem China and India need to do something.

China is the #1 source of GHGs. The USA is the #2, and India #3.

 

[ding]

abu afak why were temperatures warmer in the past with less CO2?

 

[abu afak]

abu afak why were temperatures warmer in the past with less CO2?

Of course it's a fallacious question based on Ignorance or disingenuity.

Temp is still catching up to our CO2 level.
The speed at which CO2 increased was super fast because of man, so even if levels stay here the temp WILL be going up to match earlier levels.
The planet is still warming/cooking under the 400 PPM blanket/not nearly done yet.

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course it's a fallacious question based on Ignorance or disingenuity.

Temp is still catching up to our CO2 level.
The speed at which CO2 increased was super fast because of man, so even if levels stay here the temp WILL be going up to match earlier levels.
We are still warming/cooking under the 400 PPM blanket/not nearly done yet.

`

Ignore the troll questions. Ding is not honestly looking for answers. If he were, he would go look up what the scientists say. Its not as if you have access to inside information tha he does not have. He wants you to go look it up, present the answer as determined by scientists, then he is going to pinch off some psychobabble with the idea that it is now your job to sift through it. And if you don't, he is right and "you" are wrong.

 

[ding]

Of course it's a fallacious question based on Ignorance or disingenuity.

Temp is still catching up to our CO2 level.
The speed at which CO2 increased was super fast because of man, so even if levels stay here the temp WILL be going up to match earlier levels.
The planet is still warming/cooking under the 400 PPM blanket/not nearly done yet.

`

It's actual data, dummy. The earth was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2. Nothing false about that. Hard data.

The earth has experienced a warming trend but it's not because of CO2. You have falsely correlated CO2 with natural climate fluctuations of a bipolar glaciated world. The fact that the earth was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 proves it.

 

[abu afak]

It's actual data, dummy. The earth was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2. Nothing false about that. Hard data.

The earth has experienced a warming trend but it's not because of CO2. You have falsely correlated CO2 with natural climate fluctuations of a bipolar glaciated world. The fact that the earth was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 proves it.

No one said it wasn't Data. Non-reply.
Again one would now conclude this is disingenuity rather than ignorance.
But NO answer in any case.

I did not deny that you found a time that it was warmer with less CO2.
But explained we have put so much in so fast that we have not yet reached the normal temp for our 400 PPM (and rising).

So you had NO answer just posted AS IF I denied your non-point.
When in fact I explained it way.

You would be better off trying to heel-nip/troll someone else.
You're not in the game with me.
Remember I'm Mensa right, and proved it after you denied it.


EDIT:
Note the LOSS post below.
Not a word.
`

 

[ding]

No one said it wasn't Data. Non-reply.
Again one would now conclude this is disingenuity rather than ignorance.
But NO answer in any case.

I did not deny that you found a time that it was warmer with less CO2.
But explained we have put so much in so fast that we have not yet reached the normal temp for our 400 PPM (and rising).

So you had NO answer just posted AS IF I denied your non-point.
When in fact I explained it way.

You would be better off trying to heel-nip/troll someone else.
You're not in the game with me.

`

Spoiler: hard data shows

 

[Old Rocks]

No one said it wasn't Data. Non-reply.
Again one would now conclude this is disingenuity rather than ignorance.
But NO answer in any case.

I did not deny that you found a time that it was warmer with less CO2.
But explained we have put so much in so fast that we have not yet reached the normal temp for our 400 PPM (and rising).

So you had NO answer just posted AS IF I denied your non-point.
When in fact I explained it way.

You would be better off trying to heel-nip/troll someone else.
You're not in the game with me.
Remember I'm Mensa right, and proved it after you denied it.


EDIT:
Note the LOSS post below.
Not a word.
`

Kind of hard to argue logic with a dingbat that thinks that solar panels are going to cause an ice age because that absorb all the energy and cool the earth. LOL

 

[ding]

Kind of hard to argue logic with a dingbat that thinks that solar panels are going to cause an ice age because that absorb all the energy and cool the earth. LOL

Actually it's the widespread use of solar panels. Because any solar radiation converted to electricity reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet as shown in this energy budget.

 

[ding]

Kind of hard to argue logic with a dingbat that thinks that solar panels are going to cause an ice age because that absorb all the energy and cool the earth. LOL

It's crazy that the planet was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2, right?

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually it's the widespread use of solar panels. Because any solar radiation converted to electricity reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the surface of the planet as shown in this energy budget.

View attachment 578735

That energy is converted into electrical energy which then is converted into mechanical energy which is then converted to heat energy. No energy loss in the system. Other than in nuclear processes, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's crazy that the planet was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2, right?

Now that has been explained to you many times. The fact that you repeat this nonsense is simply proof that you are a troll, unworthy of being listened to you.

 

[ding]

That energy is converted into electrical energy which then is converted into mechanical energy which is then converted to heat energy. No energy loss in the system. Other than in nuclear processes, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Except today that's happening anyway. So incrementally it reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the earth's surface. Not to mention not all energy is converted into heat. In fact, it's only a small percentage and even then does not heat the surface of the planet. So the energy budget will change.

 

[ding]

Now that has been explained to you many times. The fact that you repeat this nonsense is simply proof that you are a troll, unworthy of being listened to you.

Actually it hasn't unless your explanation was there isn't a valid correlation to CO2 post industrial revolution, dummy.

But please do go ahead and explain why it was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2.

 

[ding]

 

[abu afak]

Actually it hasn't unless your explanation was there isn't a valid correlation to CO2 post industrial revolution, dummy.

But please do go ahead and explain why it was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2.

Again, that's a non sequitur.
After 4 or 5 attempts and having it explained, it's a raging Lie/deception.

Because man has raised CO2 so rapidly in the last century/half century, the earth is 'still in the oven', still in the process of warming/reaching it's Equilibrium temp for 400 PPM.
Given a decent amount of time as natural forces do in most climatic change, we Will indeed have higher Temps.
You lose #438.

You're a Drone and this is a Debunked issue.

`