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

[Old Rocks]

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?

A good explanation, totally lost on Ding.

 

[ding]

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?

So now that you know kinetic energy and potential energy uses don't heat the surface of the planet let's address the uses of electricity that might lead to an incremental change to the earth's energy budget, ok?

 

[ding]

A good explanation, totally lost on Ding.

Too bad it's wrong. But I am so glad that you have voiced your agreement with him as it just may give him some pause for concern.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So now that you know kinetic energy and potential energy uses don't heat the surface of the planet

Do we know that?

 

[ding]

Do we know that?

Apparently you don't. When converting electrical energy into kinetic and potential energy the only energy that is converted into heat would be from losses due to friction which are typically on the order of 10%. So 90% of the electricity converted into kinetic and potential energy does not heat the atmosphere. It is used to do work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So 90% of the electricity converted into kinetic and potential energy does not heat the atmosphere. It is used to do work.

If we use solar power to run an electric vehicle, for example, 90% of the energy doesn't end up in the environment as heat?

 

[jbrownson0831]

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

You're just confusing abu dabu

 

[abu afak]

I guess this has to do with Elektra's 'Thwaites Glacier' and a "VOLCANO" too!
In fact, glaciers across the planet are melting.
AND....there have been Brushfires in Greenland and the Artic of late.
A Volcano did it!!!
Yep.

The lies, lies, and more lies continue. With a $100 trillion dollars in spending at stake, the propaganda must continue, the propaganda must scare the children, the propaganda must give the children nightmares so that the brave democrats can save our souls from the evil that we have created.

The latest, oh my god! Is Thewaites glacier, melting, about to cause a tidal wave seen only in Godzilla movies. Yet, the truth is, there are volcanos and geothermal hot-spots underneath the glacier, melting it naturally.

The truth, the facts, are rather boring compared to the Democrats screaming like a bunch of frenzied demons.

Thwaites Glacier: Why Did The BBC Fail To Mention The Volcanoes Underneath? - Net Zero Watch

The International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration is performing some magnificent science, conducting the most ambitious fieldwork ever undertaken at the tip of

www.netzerowatch.com

Thewaites, a micro dot on the map, raise your hand if you find it!
View attachment 577223

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AND....there have been Brushfires in Greenland and the Artic of late.
A Volcano did it!!!

Wrong.
It was my car.
Sorry.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wrong.
It was my car.
Sorry.

And mine. Burning fossil fuels is what has created a warming planet. As far as volcanoes go, they are not very good at melting ice. Look at the number of volcanoes covered in ice in Iceland. And then there is the glacier growing inside Mt. St. Helens, cheek and jowl with a hot lava dome.

 

[elektra]

I guess this has to do with Elektra's 'Thwaites Glacier' and a "VOLCANO" too!
In fact, glaciers across the planet are melting.
AND....there have been Brushfires in Greenland and the Artic of late.
A Volcano did it!!!
Yep.

how, very very very sweet of you to bring me to your thread, you really want my attention? It is a bit queer, me being a guy and all?

Your OP, is behind a paid subscription to the WSJ? An article in a paper that serves Wall st., which will get a cut of the $100 trillion the democrats will spend is hardly an unbiased source nor is it science.

It is propaganda at best.

Post a study, moron.

And again, thank you for such a sweet gesture in inviting me to your stupid OP based on propaganda hidden behind a paid subscription. If you think there is a study, link to it, read it, a google search confirming the propaganda you have used to form your opinion is a joke.

 

[AMart]

Where are the deadly avalanches and floods that the article mentioned?

 

[abu afak]

how, very very very sweet of you to bring me to your thread, you really want my attention? It is a bit queer, me being a guy and all?

Your OP, is behind a paid subscription to the WSJ? An article in a paper that serves Wall st., which will get a cut of the $100 trillion the democrats will spend is hardly an unbiased source nor is it science.

It is propaganda at best.

Post a study, moron.

And again, thank you for such a sweet gesture in inviting me to your stupid OP based on propaganda hidden behind a paid subscription. If you think there is a study, link to it, read it, a google search confirming the propaganda you have used to form your opinion is a joke.

Fudgery and deception.
The WSJ is a Conservative Paper owned by the same person who owns Fox 'News.'

I brought it in because you Deceptively sought to blame 'Thwaits' on just a Volcano while, IN FACT, the whole planet is warming and melting.
A straw horse/ Strawman.

Got it now puffy?

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hmmmm.

Himalaya's Heat Pump | NASA 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.

Yup! Soot from India and AGW headquarters in China are the culprits. AGW Cultists are not allowed to even mention their ChiCom overlords as possible culprits.

It's glaring obvious in their every post

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.
`

So, since CO2 is such a powerful heat generator, why is there never any lab work showing how much temperature increases when CO2 increases from 280 to 400PPM?

 

[miketx]

While everyone is focusing on Antarctica and Greenland, S Asia could lose much of it's Ag due to AGW.

""Glaciers across the Himalayas are melting at an extraordinary rate, with new research showing that the vast ice sheets there shrank 10 times faster in the past 40 years than during the previous seven centuries.

Avalanches, flooding and other effects of the accelerating loss of ice imperil residents in India, Nepal and Bhutan and threaten to disrupt agriculture for hundreds of millions of people across South Asia, according to the researchers. And since water from melting glaciers contributes to sea-level rise, glacial ice loss in the Himalayas also adds to the threat of inundation and related problems faced by coastal communities around the world.

“This part of the world is changing faster than perhaps anybody realized,” said Jonathan Carrivick, a University of Leeds glaciologist and the co-author of a paper detailing the research published Monday in the journal Scientific Reports. “It’s not just that the Himalayas are changing really fast, it’s that they’re changing ever faster.”
[.....]
The new finding comes as there is scientific consensus that ice loss from glaciers and polar ice sheets results from rising global temperatures caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels."..."
[.....]
[.....]

Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting at Furious Rate, New Study Shows

Glaciers across the region are melting at an extraordinary rate, with new research showing that the vast ice sheets there shrank 10 times faster in the past 40 years than during the previous seven centuries.

www.wsj.com

 

[abu afak]

So, since CO2 is such a powerful heat generator, why is there never any lab work showing how much temperature increases when CO2 increases from 280 to 400PPM?

You mean you don't know what the term 'Green House Gas' means and why?
You're in he wrong section.

`

 

[ding]

You mean you don't know what the term 'Green House Gas' means and why?
You're in he wrong section.

`

He is asking why there have been no experiments quantifying the associated temperature of radiative forcing of CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

Seems like a fair question to me.

 

[abu afak]

He is asking why there have been no experiments quantifying the associated temperature of radiative forcing of CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

Seems like a fair question

I don't know if there's been exact lab work done on 280-400.
And we can't recreate the planet.
It's kind of a demand detail fallacy question
The kind of heel-nipping trolling/demand detail Fallacy you specialize in.

Some sciences like astronomy and climate cannot be 'labbed'.
However we have the extensive history/correlation of temperature v CO2 for millions of years.
However I just did explain lab work that has been done.
because we can't recreate the universe doesn't mean astronomy is invalid.
We base it on observation, and with climate, yes, some labs.

I've been wrestling with putting you on ignore because you are 90% a troll/last-wording harassment such as this.

 

[Markle]