NotParker, your statement is an absolute flatout lie.
NotParker is not a messenger, he is an opinionated, fearful individual.../q]
Fear is a healthy response to threats of artificial energy rationing and the bombing of school children by their teachers in typical climate activist videos such as this one:
http://www.youtub...CH-Xc0co
Or the Greenpeace attempt to turn children into the Unabomber, here:
http://www.youtub...875_rv1s
NotParker, your statement is an absolute flatout lie.
Scream at the data, not the messenger: current global sea ice extent anomaly (divergence from the historical average) = 0:
http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg
Global sea ice is normal thanks to record levels of Antarctic Sea Ice.
NotParker, your statement is an absolute flatout lie.
Scream at the data, not the messenger: current global sea ice extent anomaly (divergence from the historical average) = 0:
http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg
P.S. "LariAnn" is a man.
Global sea ice is normal thanks to record levels of Antarctic Sea Ice.
its state is normal thanks to record levelsIt sounds like the oxymoron, doesn't it? IMO it supports the geothermal theory of global warming, in which most of heat comes from decay of radioactive potassium inside of marine water. The main portion of heat during global warming therefore comes from water - not from atmosphere.
If there was such a thing as a CO2 "tipping point" the earth would have tipped millions of years ago.
They have a cooling effect (reflect radiance)I'm not so sure about it. At first, you're talking about noctilucent clouds, which aren't identical with contrails. The noctilucent clouds are composed of very fine particles (essentially ice crystals and micrometeorites), which aren't blocking the infrared radiation very much. In addition, the high altitude of noctilucent clouds may contribute to heating of surface with reflecting of sun light incoming under low angle.
Global sea ice is normal thanks to record levels of Antarctic Sea Ice.
Global = Arctic plus Antarctic
Arctic is below normal. Antarctic is above normal.
Contrails .... They have a cooling effect (reflect radiance) and I'm curious how much on a global scale.
Global = Arctic plus Antarctic
Arctic is below normal. Antarctic is above normal.
Two vastly different environments, reacting in different ways to the same thing - irrefutable evidence of global warming.
Global = Arctic plus Antarctic
Arctic is below normal. Antarctic is above normal.
Two vastly different environments, reacting in different ways to the same thing - irrefutable evidence of global warming.
Nonsense. Both are sea ice floating in the ocean.
Antarctica is at record levels at both maximum and minimum.
If records in Antarctica are "irrefutable evidence of global warming", why is the AGW cult ignoring the records set for most ice over the last week?
Antarctic = 0.608 million sq km
http://arctic.atm...ctic.png
For a net positive of .073 million sq km
Antarctic is 600,000 sq km above average.
Thats is 20% above average.
And no one has a convincing explanation of why Antarctica should be ignored and the Arctic held up as a example of the end of the world ... other than the AGW cult are liars and frauds.
And no one has a convincing explanation of why Antarctica should be ignored and the Arctic held up as a example of the end of the world ... other than the AGW cult are liars and frauds.
No one, other than the denialist idiots, has presented a convincing argument as to why your vast ignorance should be given any attention.
And no one has a convincing explanation of why Antarctica should be ignored and the Arctic held up as a example of the end of the world ... other than the AGW cult are liars and frauds.
No one, other than the denialist idiots, has presented a convincing argument as to why your vast ignorance should be given any attention.
Insults instead of an explanation. Standard response from the cult.
If facts insult you, so be it.
If facts insult you, so be it.
If Antarctic Sea being 20% above normal and was an actual IPCC prediction it would be front page news for weeks.
As of today , global sea ice slightly above normal.
Thats the fact.
To repeat what another said, and you conveniently ignored, "Concentrating on Antarctic sea ice is a "look squirrel" tactic - the continent's mass loss is still accelerating."
To repeat "The bulk of Antarctic ice is NOT sea ice."
A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice ... over the past 150 years, and finds acceleration ...
Why do you find it surprising that ice mass will continue, even accelerate, away from the peripheries?
To repeat "The bulk of Antarctic ice is NOT sea ice."
But there is more Antarctic sea ice at Antarctic maximum (19 million sq km) than there is Arctic Ice at maximum (16 million sq km).
And the AGW cult always ignores all the ice on Greenland and the other northern islands when beclowning themselves over Antarctica.
Sane people know that there are cycles and the arctic has melted before the satellite era.
NP: I will summarize what the others have been telling you. The arctic ice is floating on an ocean and some seas. The antarctic ice is mostly sitting on a rocky continent.
To repeat "The bulk of Antarctic ice is NOT sea ice."
But there is more Antarctic sea ice at Antarctic maximum (19 million sq km) than there is Arctic Ice at maximum (16 million sq km).
And the AGW cult always ignores all the ice on Greenland and the other northern islands when beclowning themselves over Antarctica.
Wholly immaterial to the effect on Earth's albedo, which determines how much short wavelength radiation is reflected vs absorbed and re-radiated as IR.
It's the SURFACE AREA of snow and white ice that affects radiative forcing , NOT the VOLUME.
How can that be when he runs a Conservative Website that claims the cooling sun is causing the globe to warm?
Perhaps NotParker and Deepsand would like to move to the Arctic to see it first hand that way there is no way the scientific conspiracy can hide it?
Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.
Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.
CAGW as it stands has at its heart a rotten core of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Its just laughable rubbish; but it makes good idiot bait similar to religion.
Not all of the denialists present here are shills; in fact, the majority are most likely willing dupes, those for whom their policy positions require that GW/AGW be non-existent if they are to stand.
Of the regulars here, NotParker, with his one-trick-pony "The Earth is cooling; the next Ice Age is just around the corner" show strikes me as being a willing dupe.
On the other hand, ubavontuba seems to be very much the professional shill.
Actually personalities come through via their posts. Uba for instance comes through as one of those types who is so pleased with himself, that if he was a chocolate, he'd lick himself. Parky is just a parrot, repeating the same mythic stuff ad nauseum with no apparent flicker of comprehension behind it. Greggy probable a mixture of those two.
Reduced sea ice disturbs balance of greenhouse gases
On the other hand, ubavontuba seems to be very much the professional shill.It's nice that you're thinking of me. But making erroneous and unfounded accusations isn't winning your argument. Have you tried using actual science?
LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.
Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.
You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
Actually personalities come through via their posts. Uba for instance comes through as one of those types who is so pleased with himself, that if he was a chocolate, he'd lick himself.So if we don't like the message, we attack the messenger?
In addition to Uba's polished smugness, his profligate posts evidence a clipboard filled with canned responses which he repeats from thread to thread, post to post.And how is this an example of an "informed discussion?"
This is why I opined that he is the more likely to be a professional shill.
If not, he's a foolish old fart with much too much time on his hand, a troll who gets his kicks disrupting informed discussions.
In either case he needs to be taken out back to the woodshed and have his sorry ass given a good whooping.
What do you not understand, NotParker, re. the bulk of Antarctic ice NOT being SEA ICE?
LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.
Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.
You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
So, what IS the culprit?
What do you not understand, NotParker, re. the bulk of Antarctic ice NOT being SEA ICE?
At maximum, Antarctic Sea Ice is 19 million sq km in area. Antarctica itself is only 14 million sq km.
So at maximum, sea ice is 5 million sq km more than the continent of Antarctica itself.
The AGW cult members who comment here are pretty stupid.
On the other hand, ubavontuba seems to be very much the professional shill.It's nice that you're thinking of me. But making erroneous and unfounded accusations isn't winning your argument. Have you tried using actual science?
LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.
Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.
You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
So, what IS the culprit?
LOL. Of course. If/when the atmosphere is cooler, it clearly cannot warm the ground.So you are defending the statement that ... "the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground."Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!
You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
So, what IS the culprit?
Just asking. It's nice to be clear.
What do you not understand, NotParker, re. the bulk of Antarctic ice NOT being SEA ICE?
At maximum, Antarctic Sea Ice is 19 million sq km in area. Antarctica itself is only 14 million sq km.
So at maximum, sea ice is 5 million sq km more than the continent of Antarctica itself.
The AGW cult members who comment here are pretty stupid.
You've said that before Parky, several times on this thread. You don't win the argument by failing to respond to critiques of your assertions by simply stating the arguments again. People will merely think you are just a computer programme, and a poor one at that.
BTW: I will argue that a good definition of stupidity is to merely put up repetitive posts and fail to defend them. You know, kind of smacks of an unthinking/unimaginative soul. Bless.
What policy positions? Why are you trying to politicize the science?On the other hand, ubavontuba seems to be very much the professional shill.It's nice that you're thinking of me. But making erroneous and unfounded accusations isn't winning your argument. Have you tried using actual science?
The effort at explaining Science has been lost on you, as you put your policy positions ahead of all else.
You can't learn what you don't want to know.Well, you certainly exemplify that.
Perhaps, but why didn't you address the claim. It's as easy as stating: The atmosphere, in this case, acts like the glass in a car, heating up in a parking lot. It's the sun which provides the energy.LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.
Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.
You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
So, what IS the culprit?
Stupid attempt at misrepresentation.
LOL. Of course. If/when the atmosphere is cooler, it clearly cannot warm the ground.So you are defending the statement that ... "the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground."Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!
You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
So, what IS the culprit?
Just asking. It's nice to be clear.
It seems quite clear that he's stating the Antarctic sea ice (and only the sea ice) area in the Antarctic, at maximum, is greater in area than the Arctic sea ice area at maximum.
What policy positions? Why are you trying to politicize the science?On the other hand, ubavontuba seems to be very much the professional shill.It's nice that you're thinking of me. But making erroneous and unfounded accusations isn't winning your argument. Have you tried using actual science?
The effort at explaining Science has been lost on you, as you put your policy positions ahead of all else.
Perhaps, but why didn't you address the claim. It's as easy as stating: The atmosphere, in this case, acts like the glass in a car, heating up in a parking lot. It's the sun which provides the energy.LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.
Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.
You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
So, what IS the culprit?
Stupid attempt at misrepresentation.
Now, was that so difficult?
If/when the atmosphere is cooler, it clearly cannot warm the ground.
Wrong. A cooler atmosphere cannot directly warm the ground,as this would violate the laws of thermodynamics. But, the sun certainly can act to warm the ground, through the atmosphere. And a warmer atmosphere certainly might have a small influence on the ground (very small, due to the difference in energy density).LOL. Of course. If/when the atmosphere is cooler, it clearly cannot warm the ground.So you are defending the statement that ... "the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground."Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!
You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
So, what IS the culprit?
Just asking. It's nice to be clear.
False. Figure out why for yourself.
So you admit it's not about the science with you? It's about policy?What policy positions? Why are you trying to politicize the science?Stupid pretense at ignorance? Or, a very real, if unrecognized, ignorance?
LOL. You're so pretentious. If you don't know the answers, why are you even bothering to reply?Perhaps, but why didn't you address the claim? It's as easy as stating: The atmosphere, in this case, acts like the glass in a car, heating up in a parking lot. It's the sun which provides the energy.
Now, was that so difficult?
Obviously difficult for you, as you've still got it wrong. :rolleyes:
And, no, I am not going to yet again explain it to you.
Go play "But, why, Daddy?" with someone else.
Point is the OP was saying (citing law of thermodynamics) that a cold body cant warm a warm one. His concept of the GHE was bollocks, and typical of certain deniers who think they know it all, when even at such a basic level they're science idiots.I think this clearly applies to both sides. It seems few even understand how a greenhouse works, to begin with.
A cooler atmosphere cannot directly warm the ground,as this would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
So you admit it's not about the science with you? It's about policy?What policy positions? Why are you trying to politicize the science?Stupid pretense at ignorance? Or, a very real, if unrecognized, ignorance?
So why don't you quit the pretense of arguing the science, and simply argue policy then? ...you're obviously terrible at the science, anyway.
LOL. You're so pretentious. If you don't know the answers, why are you even bothering to reply?Perhaps, but why didn't you address the claim? It's as easy as stating: The atmosphere, in this case, acts like the glass in a car, heating up in a parking lot. It's the sun which provides the energy.
Now, was that so difficult?
Obviously difficult for you, as you've still got it wrong. :rolleyes:
And, no, I am not going to yet again explain it to you.
Go play "But, why, Daddy?" with someone else.
Point is the OP was saying (citing law of thermodynamics) that a cold body cant warm a warm one. His concept of the GHE was bollocks, and typical of certain deniers who think they know it all, when even at such a basic level they're science idiots.I think this clearly applies to both sides. It seems few even understand how a greenhouse works, to begin with.
NotParker
Feb 18, 2013