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

[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 keep repeating/trolling a Debunked issue hoping you can get people fed up and have the last word, even tho it's debunked.

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So incrementally it reduces the solar radiation absorbed by the earth's surface.

Unless it's bouncing more solar radiation out of the atmosphere, it's not reducing the radiation.

 

[ding]

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.

`

Actually it's proof that the correlation between temperature and CO2 was broken after the industrial revolution. There's even reasons for it.

It's quite obvious to see. You can literally see it with your own eye.

 

[ding]

Unless it's bouncing more solar radiation out of the atmosphere, it's not reducing the radiation.

Conservation of energy. Can't have a free lunch.

 

[abu afak]

Actually it's proof that the correlation between temperature and CO2 was broken after the industrial revolution. There's even reasons for it.

It's quite obvious to see. You can literally see it with your own eye.

View attachment 578739

Same wrong.
The Temp just hasn't reached equilibrium because CO2 rose so unnaturally fast at our hands.
It's just catching up.
At current rates that will take app 50-100 yrs.

If it was pure nature and Longer.... Temp would have had time to catch up to equilibrium temp for a given CO2 value.

That's right it LOOKS 'Broken' because man jerked CO2 up Faster than nature an the earth could warm to a given value for that amt of CO2... YET.

You lose #864

`

 

[ding]

Same wrong.
The Temp just hasn't reached equilibrium because CO2 rose so unnaturally fast at our hands.
It's just catching up.
At current rates that will take app 50-100 yrs.

If it was pure nature and Longer.... Temp would have had time to catch up to equilibrium temp for a given CO2 value.

That's right it LOOKS 'broken' because man jerked CO2 up faster than nature an the earth could warm to a given value for that amt of CO2... YET.

You lose #864

`

Is that your final answer? The Temp just hasn't reached equilibrium because CO2 rose so unnaturally fast at our hands.

Is that correct?

 

[abu afak]

Is that your final answer? The Temp just hasn't reached equilibrium because CO2 rose so unnaturally fast at our hands.

Is that correct?

Yes.
and unrefuted.

You lost #892
`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Conservation of energy. Can't have a free lunch.

I know.
Thanks for admitting your error.

 

[ding]

Yes.
and unrefuted.

You lost #892
`

Not so fast. Aren't the temperatures that are measured atmospheric temperature readings?

 

[ding]

I know.
Thanks for admitting your error.

What's your background in science?

 

[Old Rocks]

Is that your final answer? The Temp just hasn't reached equilibrium because CO2 rose so unnaturally fast at our hands.

Is that correct?

The oceans act as a huge inertial block. The energy is going into the water and will take a long, in human terms, time to come to equilibrium. And, by the same token, even if we start lowering the amount of GHG's, the oceans are going to make the cooling period take a lot longer.

 

[ding]

The oceans act as a huge inertial block. The energy is going into the water and will take a long, in human terms, time to come to equilibrium. And, by the same token, even if we start lowering the amount of GHG's, the oceans are going to make the cooling period take a lot longer.

Aren't the temperatures that are measured atmospheric temperature readings?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's your background in science?

Will that make your confusion less obvious?

 

[ding]

Will that make your confusion less obvious?

Yes. It will greatly help. What's your answer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. It will greatly help. What's your answer?

So 100 watts of solar energy hit the ground.
Now we build a solar panel and the 100 watts hit the panel.

How much of that energy gets destroyed to cool the Earth?

 

[ding]

So 100 watts of solar energy hit the ground.
Now we build a solar panel and the 100 watts hit the panel.

How much of that energy gets destroyed to cool the Earth?

So that's a no on you having a background in science? So you wouldn't understand anything about kinetic energy or potential energy, right?

 

[ding]

Old Rocks abu afak

Was it really that tough of a question to ask if the temperature being recorded and discussed in the context of global warming is atmospheric temperature?

Do you really have to think about the answer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So that's a no on you having a background in science? So you wouldn't understand anything about kinetic energy or potential energy, right?

If you think it will help your energy destroying claim, post your kinetic and potential energy wisdom.

 

[ding]

If you think it will help your energy destroying claim, post your kinetic and potential energy wisdom.

So that's a yes, you wouldn't understand anything about kinetic energy or potential energy?

Potential energy is like when an overhead crane lifts something. Kinetic energy would be like an electric motor powering a water pump. None of which heat the surface of the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So that's a yes, you wouldn't understand anything about kinetic energy or potential energy?

Potential energy is like when an overhead crane lifts something. Kinetic energy would be like an electric motor powering a water pump. None of which heat the surface of the planet.

I'm quivering with anticipation.

Explain how the energy in the Earth system is reduced.

Potential energy is like when an overhead crane lifts something.

If the solar energy is used to power a crane, the Earth is cooler than if the sunlight hit the surface?

Kinetic energy would be like an electric motor powering a water pump.

If the solar energy is used to pump water, the Earth is cooler than if the sunlight hit the surface?
Do we have to pump the water uphill or to the top of a building to cool the Earth?
What if we pump it up and let it move back down? Still cools the planet?

None of which heat the surface of the planet.

Does the crane warm up at all when it works? What about the pump?
How did the electricity get to the crane and the pump? Any heat generated?
How efficient are the solar panels? Any heat involved there?

So many issues. Maybe you can help me understand?