Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2016, 02:24 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
double post

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 02:30 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 02:04 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  And here is a glacier, one among many, that is still expanding: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85900

And here is the latest report on the "growing" Antarctic ice cap: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/...te-change/

Did you actually read that article? It says the data are incongruous with all the other surveys that have been done, and it is suspected that the satellites used to make those measurements may be off for a number of reasons, so scientists are taking those data with a huge grain of salt.

And more importantly, MOST glaciers are rapidly shrinking... the "many" glaciers that continue to stay stable or expand are understood and explained.

http://www.livescience.com/48256-asia-ka...ility.html


(07-12-2016 02:04 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  You didn't answer how it is that the ice cap which covered Canada and the northern US states disappeared by the way. No warmest ever does...

First off, it's "warmist"... "warmest" means "most warm". It's throwing me off when you use that slur-term wrong.

But it's well understood how it disappeared. Seriously, do your homework before posting that crap.

As for your list of expanding glaciers, I suggest you read carefully the link I posted at the top, which gets into conditions which can make some glaciers expand even as the atmosphere warms. It comes down to particular local weather patterns, altitude, etc... basically, in some spots, conditions come together to create more snowfall as a result of adding energy/warmth to the local system.

The question you need to face is, "Are these points I am raising really news to the scientific community?"

You sound no different than all the Creationists with whom I speak on biology, who keep saying, "Well if evolution is true then how come we never see a cat turning into a dog?", as if scientists are unaware of that "problem" and have no answer for it.

Do your homework on science sites, not conspiracy theory sites, and you'll find most of what you're asking, here. Indeed, the answers are further down in links you've already posted, from the non-conspiracy-theory group, NatGeo.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
07-12-2016, 02:31 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 02:23 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(07-12-2016 02:10 AM)Banjo Wrote:  While I applaud your efforts I wonder why you bother. Consider

I love doing science Smartass
Actually the whole tihng took me less than 30mins to research and write down.

I wonder who will read it?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 02:45 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 02:04 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Their headline screamed, “How global warming is changing the face of the northern hemisphere.” The photos and caption told a story that was, you’ll pardon the expression, the polar opposite of what the article described.

So you found a few glaciers growing. Thats awesome, really!

But

Do you know that a "general trend" includes lots of statistical variations and deviations? Do you know that "global warming" doesnt mean "it gets warmer everywhere". Do you know that "global warming" doesnt even necessarily refer to "heat" at all, in fact it also refers to more energy being trapped in the atmosphere, as we are trying to explain to Aractus? More energy in the atmosphere doenst necessarily mean more "heat" but hefiter weather phenomena like rain floods, hurricanes, etc?

Now, lets have a look at how much your growing glaciers are worth. How many drops in the ever growing arctic ocean (in terms of liquid water!) are they going to be worth?

This is a time span of 20y only, which is nothing in geological terms.

[Image: ShrinkingIceCaps2012.jpg]

[Image: ClimateChange_Arctic_Sea_Ice_a.jpg]

[Image: cryosphere-today.png]

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 02:46 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 02:31 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(07-12-2016 02:23 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  I love doing science Smartass
Actually the whole tihng took me less than 30mins to research and write down.

I wonder who will read it?

People who are

1) interested
2) educated
3) want to become 2)
4) you? Big Grin

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
07-12-2016, 03:01 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 02:46 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(07-12-2016 02:31 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I wonder who will read it?

People who are

1) interested
2) educated
3) want to become 2)
4) you? Big Grin

I didn't read it.

I have all that info'.

I've got the internet. Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
07-12-2016, 03:49 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 03:01 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(07-12-2016 02:46 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  People who are

1) interested
2) educated
3) want to become 2)
4) you? Big Grin

I didn't read it.

I have all that info'.

I've got the internet. Smile

Fuck you. Tongue Big Grin

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
07-12-2016, 05:19 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(06-12-2016 08:45 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Aractus,

Preindustrial 19th century CO2 was about 270-280 ppm.
It's now over 400 ppm, with all of that due to man made burning of fossil fuels.

Most of it due to anthropogenic means you mean, don't forget that deforestation has contributed not just direct emissions.

Besides, much has been said about the fact that we (Australia) have a high per-capita CO2 emission, but at least we don't use nuclear power and produce nuclear waste that need to be stored for thousands of years. In fact the Fukushima disaster is going to take thousands of years and cost trillions of dollars to manage. Japan's going to be processing and then dumping radioactive water into the ocean for thousands of years now - is that environmentally responsible?

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 05:46 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 05:19 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(06-12-2016 08:45 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Aractus,

Preindustrial 19th century CO2 was about 270-280 ppm.
It's now over 400 ppm, with all of that due to man made burning of fossil fuels.

Most of it due to anthropogenic means you mean, don't forget that deforestation has contributed not just direct emissions.

Besides, much has been said about the fact that we (Australia) have a high per-capita CO2 emission, but at least we don't use nuclear power and produce nuclear waste that need to be stored for thousands of years. In fact the Fukushima disaster is going to take thousands of years and cost trillions of dollars to manage. Japan's going to be processing and then dumping radioactive water into the ocean for thousands of years now - is that environmentally responsible?

... So because X down the road is bad, I can do Y without worrying, after all the Japanese are worse than us. Facepalm

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
07-12-2016, 05:49 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
The greenhouse effect is nonsense:

Allow me to summarize in my own words:

Heat flows from hot to cold; cold does not cause hot to become hotter; hot in warming cold does not become hotter still because it warmed the cold; only the colder temperature rises when it is heated by hot; a temperature can not heat itself.



Now just to make the distinction for new or unfamiliar readers, this short preamble, then I’ll continue:

Real greenhouses function because there is no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect that is discussed by climate science for the atmosphere is an entirely different thing than the greenhouse effect of a real physical greenhouse. This is a very convenient hijack of definitions and concepts for creating confusion. A real greenhouse gets warm because it traps hot air. It prevents air which has been heated by the surfaces inside the greenhouse which have themselves been heated by sunshine, from convecting away (hot air rises, the glass roof stops this) and being replaced by cool air from above. That is the physical mechanism of a real greenhouse (because of its solid glass roof) and it has nothing to do with the supposed radiative greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. The underlying physical mechanisms are completely different, and so the term “greenhouse effect” which should correspond to a factual physical greenhouse and the physical trapping of warm air, gets hijacked and contorted and ambiguated with this other atmospheric radiative conception for the atmosphere. It’s a total disaster for clarity, definitions, conceptualization, logic, language, etc.

However the most ironic thing about this, is that the supposed radiative greenhouse effect (which is postulated for the atmosphere) should actually be found and exist in a real physical greenhouse too, because the physics should translate over – but it isn’t!

The only place the supposed radiative greenhouse mechanics exists is within climate alarm – it exists nowhere else in all of industry and all of science and all of physics, etc. It should exist everywhere else because as a basic principle of physics, it has to be universal, and it has to be applicable anywhere else that similar situations exist. Alas, it is nowhere else to be found. It should be seen in a real greenhouse of all places for goodness’ sake! But the radiative greenhouse effect isn’t even found there. Only the real greenhouse effect is found in a real greenhouse.

There literally exists no empirical evidence for the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect version anywhere. Tests that have been performed to empirically demonstrate it have always and consistently failed to find it, among both critics of the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect and its supporters. Real physical greenhouses exist; the idea of a radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect is a fiction which hijacks the name of the real thing in a real greenhouse.

The radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect was invented to stand-in for what the lapse rate already naturally explains about the atmosphere – that the bottom of the atmosphere has to be warmer than the blackbody average of the whole system (planet Earth) as seen from outer-space. This radiative greenhouse idea was invented because the lapse rate of the atmosphere, which is a fundamental physical characteristic of all atmospheres around all planets, is left out of the energy accounting and mathematical models that climate science and climate alarm uses for modelling the Earth.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect (AGHE) depends solely upon one of two alternative ideas. And yes please note this, that the supposedly scientific theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn’t even have a consistent explanation. In any case, we either have that 1) the colder atmosphere heats up the surface, or 2) the atmosphere acts like a mirror and sends surface radiation back to the surface to heat itself up above its own temperature.

Option 1) is a plain falsity because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Cold doesn’t heat up hot, heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot, hot in heating cold doesn’t become hotter still because it heated the cold. QED. This option doesn’t need to be considered any further. To be sure, this used to be the most common argument and used the phraseology of “backradiation” to “justify” the heating. However, thermal backradiation heating is simply thermal heating from cold going to hot. This is the argument that some organizations still use, but people who are involved in this debate with me have abandoned it because it is so plainly absurd and anti-scientific, and they’ve gotten badly trashed for using it.

Option 2) can be used to develop much more complex sounding mechanics, that usually revolves around a phraseology of “trapping” radiation or heat. All you need to do to figure this one out is take the postulate to the perfect limit, where the atmosphere was a perfect mirror and reflected 100% of the thermal electromagnetic radiation from the surface back to the surface. Again, the Laws of Thermodynamics: a temperature can not increase its own temperature; a temperature can not heat itself; a temperature can not transfer heat to the same temperature or itself. What happens to your temperature when you stand in front of a mirror and get your radiant heat reflected back to you? Nothing. Does shining a flashlight into a mirror make the flashlight shine brighter? No. (Children know this).

So, that’s it. All of the arguments for this atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect (which hijacks the name of the real thing of a completely different process in a real physical greenhouse) fall under one of those two options. Many of the posts on this blog are an analysis of the variations on the arguments, but the summary here is basically all you need to debunk the atmospheric greenhouse effect of climate science and climate alarm.

Without this fake atmospheric radiative version of the greenhouse effect, climate alarm has no basis and no validity whatsoever. Carbon dioxide is plant food and nature wants us to bump it back up to healthier levels of concentration in the atmosphere that are better matched to the evolutionary development and geological history of life. What is a healthier level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Four to five times the concentration it is now – from a scant 400 parts per million of the atmosphere, to a healthier and more robust 2000 parts per million of the atmosphere. If you want to help save the planet, then help figure out a way to get carbon out of the ground and back into the atmosphere and into the biosphere where it originally was and belongs. If the carbon in the ground can be used for producing energy for improving the standard of life of man along the way, then it is a mutual, circle-of-life, Gaiaesque benefit for all. from https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/11/1...se-effect/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: