Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

Ok so I have a big post coming, but then time to faceplant some believers.

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

Great. Just what we need. A guy with faith on the other side to discredit people of logic and evidence.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

28 (edited by Einstein 14-Jan-2014 04:43:52)

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

NASA's Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space.

The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.

Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists' computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.

The SABER evidence also makes a mockery of the statement on the NASA GISS website (by Hansen underling Gavin Schmidt) claiming, "the greenhouse effect keeps the planet much warmer than it would be otherwise." [1]

As NASA's SABER team at Langley admits:

"This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says associate principal investigator Martin Mlynczak, "and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented."

Over at Principia Scientific International (PSI) greenhouse gas effect (GHE) critic, Alan Siddons is hailing the findings. Siddons and his colleagues have been winning support from hundreds of independent scientists for their GHE studies carried out over the last seven years. PSI has proved that the numbers fed into computer models by Hansen and others were based on a faulty interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics. PSI also recently uncovered long overlooked evidence from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that shows it was widely known the GHE was discredited prior to 1951. [2]

Pointedly, a much-trumpeted new book released this month by Rupert Darwall claims to help expose the back story of how the junk GHE theory was conveniently resuscitated in the 1980's by James Hansen and others to serve an environmental policy agenda at that time. [3] As the SABER research report states:

A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.

“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”

As PSI's own space scientists have confirmed, as solar energy penetrates deeper into our atmosphere, even more of its energy will end up being sent straight back out to space, thus preventing it heating up the surface of our earth. The NASA Langley Research Center report agrees with PSI by admitting:

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”





I have been learning more and more thanks to my association with a number of academics, scientists, and other intelligent persons. I am much more well prepared for this argument now.

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

okay, ignoring the discussion on man made climate change, since having that discussion is pointless,  (part of) the problem here is the icemass on land is melting due to raised temperature. ice that breaks off of land and falls into water. this makes the watef temperature drop. this disrupts warm water ocean flows, upsetting balance in other parts of the world.

again, i am not claiming this is a man made problem, but water temperature dropping around the northpole is logical.

NEE NAW NEE NAW

Primo

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

wow, three separate wrong comments in one paragraph.

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

oh right, i forgot.

people put icecubes in their drinks to keep them warm.

NEE NAW NEE NAW

Primo

32 (edited by The Great Eye 14-Jan-2014 19:08:55)

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

[Personal attack]

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

33 (edited by V. Kemp 14-Jan-2014 23:54:46)

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

Firetruck, the earth has been getting warmer and colder for eons.

In order for ice to melt and drain to oceans, the ice has to be warmer than previously to melt in the first place. It happening is not evidence of anything. New ice forms every year. New ice melts every year.

There's a lot going on with climate. A lot of moving parts. That interaction involving heat goes on is not noteworthy. It's the norm. It's constant. Overly simplistic explanations of partial systems are evidence of nothing.

I'm open to the idea of man causing climate change. We have a big impact on the earth. If real evidence is discovered, I'll want to know about it. But all of this faith-based fear-mongering by fascists who want to tax carbon is just going to make skeptics like me more skeptical and pay less attention to new studies--one of which, someday, might be legitimate.

Speculation isn't helping anything. It's numbing us to real science.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

O SCHNAP

I forgot I put an ice cube down the drain

but I didn't wrap my pipes

damn they're gonna bust before I get home

damn damn damn

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

I left the hair dryer on in my house! now it will be 150 degrees for the next hundred years! OH NOES!

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

spock, i agree that temperatures have always been fluctuating, hence why i am not going into the mankind causing the problem discussion, could be so, could not be so.

i am also not claiming the ice will make the oceans freeze, putting an ice cube in your drink doesn't make your drink freeze, it does however make it colder, and will, if you put it in a freezer, make it freeze faster (because it had a colder starting temperature). simple science. and yes, i know it is confusing for you flint, but i am afraid i lack the skills to explain this to someone on your intellectual level...

NEE NAW NEE NAW

Primo

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

oh and spock, in order for ice to break off it doesn't need to melt first, they can break off due to weakened structures, and even if it melts first, it is still colder than the water it falls into.

NEE NAW NEE NAW

Primo

38 (edited by Key 17-Jan-2014 23:34:23)

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

Mister Spock wrote:

You're making the claim. The obligation to provide evidence is yours.

Actually that arguement doesn't work.  Your MAKING the arguement that there is no proof.  And then your also argueing that, your not saying that man may or may not be effecting the planet...

It's one or the other.

In fact, your not even providing proof that can't be used to substantiate that global warming isn't being helped along by humans.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-m … -100-years

Most of the heating occurs during the industrial revolution and proceeds into the start of the mass automotive production, with heavy machinery production increasing, and expansion after 1944.  With increased deforestation, strip mining, mass pesticide crop spraying, industrial expansion....

...The increased production of green house gases, through unregulated business interests....all the proof IS on my side.

Your not showing jack squat, Spock.

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

Ok, i'll rephrase just for your Spock.

The current hypothetical THEORY/FACT, and one that is globally shared by the MAJORITY of scientists, is that a link has been seen through the growth of Mass Production by humanity, to the elongated period of rising heat levels.  The, Mass Production of material goods starts just near World War II, and increases as our population on earth has gone up.  The more people, the more Mass Production.  The rising levels of heat have gone up during those years that Mass Production has also increased.

NOW...NOW...in order to DISPROVE that THEORY/FACT, and the only way to disprove of it, is if there was a cycle of global cooling, dropping down for say...the next sixty years.

Until Global Cooling is achieved...and not by a, "Oh look at that cold weather that hit the east coast and up north," after all you need decades of Global Cooling to occur, to disprove the fact that Global Warming is wholly made made.

Now Spock, unless you can PROVIDE proof of Global Cooling starting, we can only "Surmise" that the heat will continue to rise, as it has shown in the chart above.

Unless you can prove that the Sun is starting to expand on a yearly basis, and that we'll go into a Red Dwarf phase, then I might be inclined to believe that the world would end in another thousand years.

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

The current hypothetical THEORY/FACT, and one that is globally shared by the MAJORITY of scientists, is that a link has been seen through the growth of Mass Production by humanity, to the elongated period of rising heat levels.  The, Mass Production of material goods starts just near World War II, and increases as our population on earth has gone up.  The more people, the more Mass Production.  The rising levels of heat have gone up during those years that Mass Production has also increased.

NOW...NOW...in order to DISPROVE that THEORY/FACT, and the only way to disprove of it, is if there was a cycle of global cooling, dropping down for say...the next sixty years.

Nuts. It was disproved the first year the rising population and industrialization saw flat global temperature change.  That showed the supposed Greenhouse Effect wasn't in place.

See there's the legitimate Scientific view that Nobody Knows Yet.   It's a real bitch of a unifying theory.  And the only way to disprove NKY is to demonstrate you DO know. NKY only falls down when somebody can predict the function of a physical process through experiment, reliably. 

AGW said NKY was dead, the answer was AGW.

AGW has failed the experiment called Earth, 1992-2014.

We're back to NKY.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: The ship who got stuck in ice

key wrote:

Your MAKING the arguement that there is no proof.  And then your also argueing that, your not saying that man may or may not be effecting the planet...

It's perfectly logical that I can accept the possibility that man might be impacting the climate of the planet while being aware that there is no proof [/sound evidence] that man is.

key wrote:

It's one or the other.

You're arguing that it's either NOT POSSIBLE that man is impacting the climate, or it's PROVEN that he does. That's completely irrational and nonsensical.

I'm going to ignore you now. Because I'm too old to respond to children whose parents told them they were special when they failed Introduction to Formal Logic  PHIL101. If you don't have enough sense to know you're incoherent, it'd be a waste of time and energy to respond to your inane ramblings.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]