# West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Could Disintegrate Within Decades



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly

and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.

There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime. But you keep on fighting to keep the coal business alive and your good friends in the oil industry pocketing their billions and billions.


----------



## toobfreak (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> 
> and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.
> 
> There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime.




Great!  I gotta get down there and save a chunk of it in my fridge as a conversation piece!


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

Are you incapable of debating these points or do you choose to avoid it out of laziness or do you simply not care?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 3, 2019)

LOL you RETARDS have been claiming this shit for 30 years, always JUST around the corner and EVERY SINGLE TIME you are found to be willfully LYING.


----------



## DGS49 (Feb 3, 2019)

NOTHING associated with "Global Warming" (or whatever the Leftists want to call it this week) will happen so rapidly that we humans will be unable to timely react.  The seas may rise, and some land will be covered with water.  Some of Florida, maybe. Some South Pacific islands.  But New York City and Boston will somehow be protected, as will Venice, Italy, New Orleans, and so on.

How fucking stupid do you have to be in order to ignore the fact that the Human Race has adapted to a thousand different varieties of "Climate Change" in its history, and still thrived?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> 
> and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.
> 
> There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime. But you keep on fighting to keep the coal business alive and your good friends in the oil industry pocketing their billions and billions.


What the liberal elites arent telling you, because you are too stupid to know better.
Subglacial volcanoes melting West Antarctic Ice sheet, say scientists


> It's not just climate change that is causing the rapid loss of ice in the West Antarctic; researchers have discovered that geothermal activity is contributing to the melting.


 Now if you cant get Hillary's big ass to cap the volcanic activity going on down there, then there is no hope that the ice sheet isnt going to melt...Maybe the tranny Michael Obama's ass could do it?


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

Are you calling me a liar?

The WAIS disintegration became a foregone conclusion when it was discovered that the base of the sheet was separating from bedrock below; that ocean water had begun to float the ice sheet off its base.  Most of the WAIS bedrock is below sea level due to the weight of the ice sitting on it.  But that disintegration was expected to take many centuries.  Now it seen to be taking place at a much more rapid pace.

So, your accusation is bullshit.  And the next time you call me a liar, it would be awfully marine-like for you to have some proof.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> NOTHING associated with "Global Warming" (or whatever the Leftists want to call it this week) will happen so rapidly that we humans will be unable to timely react.  The seas may rise, and some land will be covered with water.  Some of Florida, maybe. Some South Pacific islands.  But New York City and Boston will somehow be protected, as will Venice, Italy, New Orleans, and so on.
> 
> How fucking stupid do you have to be in order to ignore the fact that the Human Race has adapted to a thousand different varieties of "Climate Change" in its history, and still thrived?



Because this is happening a thousand times faster than anything we have ever faced before and a thousand times as many people will be affected by it.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> ...



Your post is offensive and lacking content.  

PS, for your sig to be true, the US would have had to have spent $407 billion every year since 1964.  The complete national budget in 1964 was $119 billion.  So, I call bullshit.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Are you calling me a liar?
> 
> The WAIS disintegration became a foregone conclusion when it was discovered that the base of the sheet was separating from bedrock below; that ocean water had begun to float the ice sheet off its base.  Most of the WAIS bedrock is below sea level due to the weight of the ice sitting on it.  But that disintegration was expected to take many centuries.  Now it seen to be taking place at a much more rapid pace.
> 
> So, your accusation is bullshit.  And the next time you call me a liar, it would be awfully marine-like for you to have some proof.


You get taken in by this bullshit claims we have all seen the evidence that your organizations LIE about what they are saying they have been caught time and again. The head scientists have even stated it is ok to lie to scare people cause well its for their own good.


----------



## cnm (Feb 3, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You get taken in by this bullshit claims we have all seen the evidence that your organizations LIE about what they are saying they have been caught time and again.


Are you saying NASA is lying and there is not a huge cavity under the glacier?

If so, it would be interesting to see your evidence.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are you calling me a liar?
> ...



Let's see some evidence that NASA, NOAA, NWS, Hadley, JWA, BEST, UC Sea Level Lab, NSIDC, NCDC, IPCC or any other governmental or intergovernmental organization producing peer reviewed climate data has lied.  You're a fucking marine.  If you haven't got the evidence, I expect you to act like one.  Be fucking man.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> ...



Your post is offensive and lacking content.

PS, for your sig to be true, the US would have had to have spent $407 billion every year since 1964.  The complete national budget in 1964 was $123.2 billion.  So, I call bullshit.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> 
> and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.
> 
> There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime. But you keep on fighting to keep the coal business alive and your good friends in the oil industry pocketing their billions and billions.


No conservative republican cares.


----------



## cnm (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> You're [RetiredGySgt] a fucking marine.


Yes, used to brooking no argument from the troops, requiring no evidence only the authority of his rank to assert received truth.


----------



## cnm (Feb 3, 2019)

andaronjim said:


>


When one can't argue the science.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...




I will add this to my collection.  Yours is the 23rd denier post suggesting someone commit suicide.  How morally elevated of you all.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

bodecea said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> ...



I trust this is not actually true.  I don't believe we actually have a representative sample of American Republicans on this forum.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> 
> and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.
> 
> There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime. But you keep on fighting to keep the coal business alive and your good friends in the oil industry pocketing their billions and billions.



First the Arctic is completely ice free and now this

China, have you told China?  Will you tie yourself to the gates of the Chinese Embassy in protest?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



China is still far far far and away the worlds biggest polluter.  Be sincere and protest in front of the Chinese Embassy


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

Off topic.  If you want to complain about China's GHG emissions, start your own thread.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> 
> and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.
> 
> There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime. But you keep on fighting to keep the coal business alive and your good friends in the oil industry pocketing their billions and billions.



Wrong again Einstein.

The energy policies of governments will always be dictated by costs. Cheaper means governments retain power. Embracing a full- on policy with renewables means cities burn....people in power not gonna let that happen. Duh

What it means is, those with green fantasies are gonna have to suck on it!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 3, 2019)

Progressives derive their news from fake news sources.

In the real world, where they try to go st00pid green, it's a disaster.

Yellow vest protests continue in France despite Macron outreach - Independent.ie

Going green means mega-taxes......its never gonna happen!!!!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


I just did argue the science, dumbass, because below the ice sheet is a volcano.. God you mother fuckers are stupid...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Off topic.  If you want to complain about China's GHG emissions, start your own thread.


Oh, so you cant stop China from being the worlds worst polluter, so bitch to US about it, and do nothing.. Typical whiney bitch liberfag.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 3, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Off topic.  If you want to complain about China's GHG emissions, start your own thread.
> ...



Is it not fascinating that these people cannot on any level recognize that China makes green dreams a non-starter. Fortunately, most people do recognize this as evidenced by nothing but token activity in terms of climate change action! For 20 years!


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

The collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been the subject of a great deal of study.  This study suggests one thousand years would be a rapid collapse but this is from March of 2009, prior to much research.  Modelling West Antarctic ice sheet growth and collapse through the past five million years

*Modelling West Antarctic ice sheet growth and collapse through the past five million years*

The West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS), with ice volume equivalent to ∼5 m of sea level1, has long been considered capable of past and future catastrophic collapse2,3,4.

Grounding lines are several hundred metres below sea level and the bed deepens upstream, raising the prospect of runaway retreat3,5. 

*References*

1.
Lythe, M. B. _et al._ BEDMAP: A new ice thickness and subglacial topographic model of Antarctica. _J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth_ 106(B6) 11335–11351 (2001)


Article
Google Scholar


2.
Mercer, J. H. West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: A threat of disaster. _Nature_ 271, 321–325 (1978)


Article
Google Scholar


3.
Weertman, J. Stability of the junction of an ice sheet and an ice shelf. _J. Glaciol._ 13, 3–11 (1974)


Google Scholar


4.
Oppenheimer, M. & Alley, R. B. The West Antarctic ice sheet and long term climate policy – An editorial comment. _Clim. Change_64, 1–10 (2004)


Article
Google Scholar


5.
Schoof, C. Ice sheet grounding line dynamics: Steady states, stability, and hysteresis. _J. Geophys. Res._ 112 F03S28 10.1029/2006JF000664 (2007)


Article
Google Scholar


6.
Ritz, C., Rommelaere, V. & Dumas, C. Modeling the evolution of Antarctic ice sheet over the last 420,000 years: Implications for altitude changes in the Vostok region. _J. Geophys. Res._ 106 (D23) 31943–31964 (2001)


Article
Google Scholar


7.
Huybrechts, P. Sea-level changes at the LGM from ice-dynamic reconstructions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets during the glacial cycles. _Quat. Sci. Rev._ 21, 203–231 (2002)


Article
Google Scholar


8.
Anderson, J. B. _Antarctic Marine Geology_ (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999)


Google Scholar


9.
Ravelo, A. C. _et al._ Regional climate shifts caused by gradual global cooling in the Pliocene epoch. _Nature_ 429, 263–267 (2004)


CAS
PubMed
Article
Google Scholar


10.
Scherer, R. P. Quaternary and Tertiary microfossils from beneath Ice Stream-B – Evidence for a dynamic West Antarctic Ice-Sheet History. _Glob. Planet. Change_ 90, 395–412 (1991)


Article
Google Scholar


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

*Reassessment of the Potential Sea-Level Rise from a Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet*

*Abstract*
Theory has suggested that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may be inherently unstable. Recent observations lend weight to this hypothesis. We reassess the potential contribution to eustatic and regional sea level from a rapid collapse of the ice sheet and find that previous assessments have substantially overestimated its likely primary contribution. We obtain a value for the global, eustatic sea-level rise contribution of about 3.3 meters, with important regional variations. The maximum increase is concentrated along the Pacific and Atlantic seaboard of the United States, where the value is about 25% greater than the global mean, even for the case of a partial collapse.

Good news: These fellows don't think a WAIS collapse would raise sea level as much as others: only 3.3 m (ten feet).  
Bad news, the US Atlantic and Pacific sea boards would see 4.125m (13.5 ft)


----------



## cnm (Feb 3, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> I just did argue the science, dumbass, because below the ice sheet is a volcano.. God you mother fuckers are stupid...


Yeah, right. This is yours, I believe...

_Last edited: Today at 10:39 AM_​


----------



## cnm (Feb 3, 2019)

Anyway





andaronjim said:


> I just did argue the science, dumbass, because below the ice sheet is a volcano..


One assumes the volcanoes have always been there.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Are you incapable of debating these points or do you choose to avoid it out of laziness or do you simply not care?



What points, precisely are you debating?

The process to date has been ...

1.  You make a disastrous prognostication.

2.  We ridicule your doom-saying.

3.  You respond by calling names and pronouncing us climate heretics

4.  Rinse, repeat.

For the record, that is in no way a debate. 

You claim to value science, but you ignore the scientific method.

Present your data without emotion or political bias for examination. Respond to criticism only with additional data.  Present the results of repeatable experiments and make no appeals to authority or supremacy of opinion.

No appeals to emotion or disparaging remarks are allowed, they only devalue your argument.

I'm more than willing to have a climate debate ... but, I'm not willing to entertain for a moment we disrupt our economy, give additional powers to government, or create a tax burden on a single person because of a yet to be explained, certainly not demonstrably proved, hypothesis.


----------



## IanC (Feb 3, 2019)

IF, a big if, the WAIS is headed for collapse then it was set in motion 8000 years ago when we came out of the last ice age not in the last 50 years.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Under Way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica

*Antarctic Collapse*
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is particularly vulnerable to ocean warming-induced collapse. The Thwaites Glacier of West Antarctica is one of the largest WAIS regional contributors to sea level rise, and has been considered to be potentially unstable for many years. *Joughin et al.* (p. 735) used a combination of a numerical model and observations of its recent geometry and movement to investigate the stability of the Thwaites Glacier. The glacier has already entered the early stages of collapse, and rapid and irreversible collapse is likely in the next 200 to 1000 years.

*Abstract*
Resting atop a deep marine basin, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has long been considered prone to instability. Using a numerical model, we investigated the sensitivity of Thwaites Glacier to ocean melt and whether its unstable retreat is already under way. Our model reproduces observed losses when forced with ocean melt comparable to estimates. Simulated losses are moderate (<0.25 mm per year at sea level) over the 21st century but generally increase thereafter. Except possibly for the lowest-melt scenario, the simulations indicate that early-stage collapse has begun. Less certain is the time scale, with the onset of rapid (>1 mm per year of sea-level rise) collapse in the different simulations within the range of 200 to 900 years.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> Anyway
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Only a liberal idiot would assume volcanos have always been someplace.  
Do you know anything about plate tectonics?


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

IanC said:


> IF, a big if, the WAIS is headed for collapse then it was set in motion 8000 years ago when we came out of the last ice age not in the last 50 years.



It was set in motion when the grounding line started peeling back within the last decade.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

fncceo said:


> I'm more than willing to have a climate debate ... but, I'm not willing to entertain for a moment we disrupt our economy, give additional powers to government, or create a tax burden on a single person because of a yet to be explained, certainly not demonstrably proved, hypothesis.



Having attempted to assume you've already won the debate, what was it you wanted to talk about?


----------



## fncceo (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm more than willing to have a climate debate ... but, I'm not willing to entertain for a moment we disrupt our economy, give additional powers to government, or create a tax burden on a single person because of a yet to be explained, certainly not demonstrably proved, hypothesis.
> ...



Climate changes... that part is indisputable.  The degree to which humans contribute to that, the rate of change, the possible consequences of change, all of those are up for debate.


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

Okay.






Here we have a measure of the various forcing factors.  What is your opinion regarding these data and what is the bases of your opinion?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you totally ignore that with volcanic activity and thermal temperatures of water increasing due to such activity, you are still going with your bullshit agenda?  I have a great idea, you want to save the planet?


----------



## Crick (Feb 3, 2019)

I don't believe you're part of this conversation.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> I don't believe you're part of this conversation.


of course you cant believe, because if you did, that would blow the whole liberal agenda of wealth distribution...


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 3, 2019)

Oy.....

This is the latest bomb throwing stunt in here. In ten years of being in this stupid forum, probably seen 500 of these hysterical topics.....none of this crap has moved the care needle a smidge. But they keep on doing it!!.

You know what mental health professionals say!


----------



## cnm (Feb 3, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Do you know anything about plate tectonics?


I live on the Ring of Fire.

* Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet *
_ 
This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt more ice in region affected by climate change
Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet_​


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Off topic.  If you want to complain about China's GHG emissions, start your own thread.



Not off topic.  If CO2 is going to end all life on planet earth, go after the biggest emitters and stop trying to drive down the US economy


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know anything about plate tectonics?
> ...



Wow global warming causes subsurface volcanoes.

Who knew?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> *Reassessment of the Potential Sea-Level Rise from a Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Theory has suggested that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may be inherently unstable. Recent observations lend weight to this hypothesis. We reassess the potential contribution to eustatic and regional sea level from a rapid collapse of the ice sheet and find that previous assessments have substantially overestimated its likely primary contribution. We obtain a value for the global, eustatic sea-level rise contribution of about 3.3 meters, with important regional variations. The maximum increase is concentrated along the Pacific and Atlantic seaboard of the United States, where the value is about 25% greater than the global mean, even for the case of a partial collapse.
> ...



We need to get China to cut back their emissions TODAY, Crick!


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wow global warming causes subsurface volcanoes.
> 
> Who knew?


Dumb fuck US rightards, apparently.


----------



## Crick (Feb 4, 2019)

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/5/1/eaau3433.full.pdf
*Heterogeneous retreat and ice melt of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica*

"The glaciers flowing into the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica, have undergone acceleration and grounding line retreat over the past few decades that may yield an irreversible mass loss. Using a constellation of satellites, we detect the evolution of ice velocity, ice thinning, and grounding line retreat of Thwaites Glacier from 1992 to 2017. The results reveal a complex pattern of retreat and ice melt, with sectors retreating at 0.8 km/year and floating ice melting at 200 m/year, while others retreat at 0.3 km/year with ice melting 10 times slower. We interpret the results in terms of buoyancy/slope-driven seawater intrusion along preferential channels at tidal frequencies leading to more efficient melt in newly formed cavities. Such complexities in ice-ocean interaction are not currently represented in coupled ice sheet/ocean models."

This is the study that found the Manhattan-sized, thousand foot high cavity under Thwaites Glacier in the WAIS.  The full study is available to the public without cost.  As noted above, they found retreat rates as high as 0.8km/year (2.2 meters/day).  They also found areas where the grounding line was cycling back and forth with the tide, a motion likely to accelerate the disintegration of the leading edge of the ice sheet through fatigue, like bending a piece of metal back and forth till it fails.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 4, 2019)

it could, and it might not.  making predictions one will never observed is stupid as eating shit just cause it exists.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 4, 2019)

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wow global warming causes subsurface volcanoes.
> ...


so you think that global warming causes subsurface volcanoes?  Really?  omg, i just spat on myself laughing so hard.  coffee out my nose as well.  hly fk.  dude, you need a new drug, Listen to  Huey  Lewis


----------



## jc456 (Feb 4, 2019)

cnm said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


science?  from you?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 4, 2019)

cnm said:


> Anyway
> 
> 
> 
> ...


do you know they haven't?  really?  come on tell us how old you really are.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 4, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are you incapable of debating these points or do you choose to avoid it out of laziness or do you simply not care?
> ...


but he isn't willing to have a debate.  it's why he does all of what you posted.  it's called lying, bait and switch, condescension, you name it, everything but science.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


more made up graphs.  dude, you have absolutely no empirical evidence.  none, nadda.  been asking you for it.  show me how CO2 behaves with an experiment.  come on dude, why do you always fold?


----------



## Flash (Feb 4, 2019)




----------



## jc456 (Feb 4, 2019)

Flash said:


>


Actual scientists.  hmmm what is now the excuse for the warmer sky fallers?


----------



## Crick (Feb 4, 2019)

I missed where they argued that the WAIS wasn't at risk of disintegration.  In fact, given their arguments that the history of the planet is much warmer than today, I'd say they agree that the disappearance of the ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland should be expected.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2019)

cnm said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wow global warming causes subsurface volcanoes.
> ...


How does cutting CO2 impact the undersea volcanoes. You missed a few steps


----------



## Crick (Feb 4, 2019)

Frank, do you believe all global warming is being caused by Antarctic volcanoes?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Frank, do you believe all global warming is being caused by Antarctic volcanoes?


I don't think he believes there is global warming.  so that will be an easy answer for him.  again, something you can't prove.


----------



## Crick (Feb 5, 2019)

As you are unable to prove any contention you or Frank has made about the climate.  When will you learn there are no proofs in the natural sciences?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> As you are unable to prove any contention you or Frank has made about the climate.  When will you learn there are no proofs in the natural sciences?


what is it you think I must prove?  it is you with the challenge and failing miserably because there is nothing for you to use to prove a point that can't be proved.  fail....


----------



## Crick (Feb 5, 2019)

Prove that the world has not gotten warmer since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

Prove that carbon dioxide doesn't absorb IR radiation

Prove either that CO2 has not increased or that it originates from something other than human activity.

Prove that something prevents matter from emitting photons in the direction of warmer matter

Prove that all the climate scientists on the planet are involved in a perfectly executed conspiracy to push a hoax of AGW

Prove that you have the basic intelligence necessary to participate in this discussion.


----------



## IanC (Feb 5, 2019)

Wasn't there an unexpected result a few months back? Something like, a hole drilled under the WAIS edge showed ice accumulating rather than melting?

Models have a way of mirroring the beliefs of the programmers .


----------



## Crick (Feb 5, 2019)

I did not see such a thing.  They've been drilling down to the sub-glacial sediment for some time and only recently reached it.  I believe the large cavity was found by gjround-penetrating radar.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> Prove that the world has not gotten warmer since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
> 
> Prove that carbon dioxide doesn't absorb IR radiation
> 
> ...


so you want me to prove everything you can't?  too funny.  I don't do others homework.  You said it was getting warmer, I chose to disagree with you.  You fail to present evidence that the world is getting warmer.  why?


----------



## Crick (Feb 5, 2019)

You have no value here.  None.  At.  All.


----------



## IanC (Feb 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> I did not see such a thing.  They've been drilling down to the sub-glacial sediment for some time and only recently reached it.  I believe the large cavity was found by gjround-penetrating radar.




"





Watch: Scientists from New Zealand peer beneath the ice.

VIDEO
*Deep Bore Into Antarctica Finds Freezing Ice, Not Melting as Expected*
*Scientists will leave sensors in the hole to better understand the long-term changes in the ice, which may have big implications for global sea level.*

4 MINUTE READ
BY DOUGLAS FOX

PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 16, 2018




SCIENTISTS HAVE PEERED into one of the least-explored swaths of ocean on Earth, a vast region located off the coast of West Antarctica. It is locked beneath a crust of ice larger than Spain and more than 1,000 feet thick, making its waters perpetually dark—and extremely difficult for humans to access. Now, a team of researchers has bored a hole through the ice and sampled the ocean beneath it. Their work could shed light on a poorly understood, but ominous episode in Antarctica’s recent past.

A team of scientists from New Zealand began this two-month expedition in November. A ski-mounted Twin Otter aircraft ferried them 220 miles from the nearest base, landing near the middle of the Ross Ice Shelf—the massive slab of ice and snow, as flat and empty as a prairie, that hangs off the coastline of West Antarctica and floats on the ocean. Amid the glow of 24-hour summer sunlight filtering down through fog, they assembled an automobile-sized contraption of pipes, hoses, and boilers. (See more of the world below Antarctic ice.)


Get more of the inspiring photos and stories we're known for, plus special offers.


By signing up for this email, you are agreeing to news, offers, and information from National Geographic Partners and our partners. Click here to visit our Privacy Policy. Easy unsubscribe links are provided in every email.

This machine generated a powerful jet of hot water, which they used to melt two narrow holes, each a few inches across, more than 1,100 feet down to the bottom of the ice. They then lowered cameras and other instruments through the holes, into the waters below. In doing so, they hoped to answer a question of worldwide importance: just how secure is the ice of West Antarctica?

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is up to 10,000 feet thick in some places. It sits in a broad, low bowl that dips thousands of feet below sea level—making it vulnerable to deep, warm ocean currents that are already nipping at its outer edges. It is stabilized, at least for the time being, by a phalanx of floating ice shelves, that hang off its outer edges—of which the Ross Ice Shelf is by far the largest. Those floating shelves provide a buttress; they “are holding back a very big amount of ice,” says Craig Stevens, an oceanographer from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, who participated in the expedition.

TODAY’SPOPULAR STORIES
TRAVELPICTURE STORIES
She arrived a tourist. The island’s beauty inspired her to become its sole nun.

ENVIRONMENT
Striking photos reveal plastic and plankton side-by-side

ANIMALS
Lions cling to giraffe's back in risky attack

Global sea levels would rise by 10 feet if West Antarctica lost these crucial stabilizers and spilled its ice into the ocean. Scientists fear that some of these ice shelves are already weakening. Stevens and his colleagues hoped to assess the health of the Ross Ice Shelf by measuring water temperatures and ocean currents beneath it—thereby determining how quickly ice is melting off its underside. (See what would happen if all the world’s ice melted.)


*Surprising Finds*
The surprises began almost as soon as a camera was lowered into the first borehole, around December 1. The undersides of ice shelves are usually smooth due to gradual melting. But as the camera passed through the bottom of the hole, it showed the underside of the ice adorned with a glittering layer of flat ice crystals—like a jumble of snowflakes—evidence that in this particular place, sea water is actually freezing onto the base of the ice instead of melting it.


----------



## Crick (Feb 5, 2019)

That's good.  But the behavior of the shelves over the last decade or so doesn't give me a warm fuzzy that that finding is commonplace.  Was there more text to that?  I went to the video link but could not find anything from this story


----------



## IanC (Feb 5, 2019)

IanC said:


> *Surprising Finds*
> The surprises began almost as soon as a camera was lowered into the first borehole, around December 1. The undersides of ice shelves are usually smooth due to gradual melting. But as the camera passed through the bottom of the hole, it showed the underside of the ice adorned with a glittering layer of flat ice crystals—like a jumble of snowflakes—evidence that in this particular place, sea water is actually freezing onto the base of the ice instead of melting it.



Sorry, my last post was only supposed to be this long. A surprising find because they expected ice melt but when they actually looked they found ice growth. The models were wrong.

Someone Here, presumably Crick, will say that was only one spot and maybe it is different elsewhere. Perhaps but I bet the spot was picked as likely to produce good results.


----------



## Crick (Feb 5, 2019)

You've got several things going on there.  Overall, the shelves have been crumbling.  However, those remaining intact have been growing in area.  That is primarily due to the acceleration of the glaciers ashore pushing more and more ice out off the coast.  Temperatures ashore and in the sea have been rising.  Given all that, I would not extrapolate from this one location to the entire coast of Antarctica.  It might, but I wouldn't bet on it with the cards you have in your hand right now.


----------



## IanC (Feb 5, 2019)

Look Crick, I consider myself a very reasoned and reasonable man. I do not believe the CAGW doomsday scenarios. 

I argue against the idiot claims made by the extremists on my side. I never see you taking a stand against the extremists on your side.


----------



## Crick (Feb 5, 2019)

I expressed my concern that the WAIS might disintegrate catastrophically far sooner than the multi-century prognostications suggest the first I heard the grounding lines were pulling back.


----------



## IanC (Feb 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> I expressed my concern that the WAIS might disintegrate catastrophically far sooner than the multi-century prognostications suggest the first I heard the grounding lines were pulling back.



Sorry. For a moment I forgot you are a wacko extremist on the warmers side.


----------



## Crick (Feb 6, 2019)

As the article and study linked in the OP shows, I am not the only person to have such concerns.  Those were not "wacko extremists".


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2019)

Antarctica is the perfect place to make up doomsday scenarios.  There is very little data. What little data there is has only been collected very recently. The methodologies used to collect the data uses massive assumptions that dwarf the signal that we are trying to pry out.

For example. The GRACE satellites estimate the size of the Antarctic ice sheets by inferral from minute changes in gravity. But it only works if we know exactly how much the underlying ground is rising or sinking. And there has only been a brief time where measurements have been taken. The initial estimates were very large in a negative direction and have come down since. In contrast, laser altimeter needs less assumptions because it is more or less a direct measurement. What did it show? Ice mass gain. The results weren't even released for five years after they were collected.

The OP says they found a hole under the ice. A theory is quickly invented to explain how this is worse than we thought (even though we don't know if the hole was already there). When they actually drill a borehole to examine the underside of the ice, they find it is growing instead of melting.

Which data is to be believed? I don't think we can decide that with the paucity of data that we have, especially when it is contradictory.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 7, 2019)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I expressed my concern that the WAIS might disintegrate catastrophically far sooner than the multi-century prognostications suggest the first I heard the grounding lines were pulling back.
> ...


Not to mention as dense as lead.


----------



## Crick (Feb 7, 2019)

I'll take the source of that comment into account.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 7, 2019)

IanC said:


> For example. The GRACE satellites estimate the size of the Antarctic ice sheets by inferral from minute changes in gravity. But it only works if we know exactly how much the underlying ground is rising or sinking.



Let's explore your theory, even if it is totally unsupported.

Sea level rise has to be coming from somewhere.

If a portion isn't coming from Antarctic melt, it must be coming from somewhere else. Where do you think that source is? Remember, your theory won't work if it doesn't account for all the data.

And since sea level rise is already at a high rate, then any increased melt off of Antarctica, no matter what the baseline melt was, will still raise the rate of sea level rise by the same amount as predicted before. Thus, the same amount of concern would be warranted.


----------



## IanC (Feb 9, 2019)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > For example. The GRACE satellites estimate the size of the Antarctic ice sheets by inferral from minute changes in gravity. But it only works if we know exactly how much the underlying ground is rising or sinking.
> ...



The last time I saw a sea level rise budget come close to being balanced was was done around 2010 when the big drop occurred.

What papers are you referencing to make your claim?


----------



## harmonica (Feb 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> 
> and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.
> 
> There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime. But you keep on fighting to keep the coal business alive and your good friends in the oil industry pocketing their billions and billions.


I will..I don't live near the coast


----------



## harmonica (Feb 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> Are you calling me a liar?
> 
> The WAIS disintegration became a foregone conclusion when it was discovered that the base of the sheet was separating from bedrock below; that ocean water had begun to float the ice sheet off its base.  Most of the WAIS bedrock is below sea level due to the weight of the ice sitting on it.  But that disintegration was expected to take many centuries.  Now it seen to be taking place at a much more rapid pace.
> 
> So, your accusation is bullshit.  And the next time you call me a liar, it would be awfully marine-like for you to have some proof.


just build the buildings inland....what's the problem??
it's not like people won't be able to get to higher terrain


----------



## Votto (Feb 9, 2019)

Crick said:


> Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> 
> and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.
> 
> There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime. But you keep on fighting to keep the coal business alive and your good friends in the oil industry pocketing their billions and billions.



Woops!

Time for a root canal.

Pricey.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 11, 2019)

IanC said:


> The last time I saw a sea level rise budget come close to being balanced was was done around 2010 when the big drop occurred.



One example from 2011:

Leuliette, E.W., and J.K. Willis. 2011. Balancing the sea level budget. 

https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/24-2_leuliette.pdf
---
With several improvements, recent analyses of the sea level rise budget found closure at the 0.2 mm yr–1 level 
---

Another from 2018:

Global sea-level budget 1993–presentWCRP Global Sea Level Budget Group
https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/10/1551/2018/essd-10-1551-2018.pdf
---
If we consider the ensemble mean trends for the GMSL, thermosteric and ocean mass components given in Sects. 2.2, 2.3 and 2.9 over 2005–present, we find agreement (within error bars) between the observed GMSL (3.5±0.2 mm yr−1) and the sum of Argo-based thermosteric plus GRACE-based ocean mass (3.6±0.4 mm yr−1)
---

I'm not certain where you got the idea that the sea level rise budget was out of whack.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 11, 2019)

harmonica said:


> it's not like people won't be able to get to higher terrain



So you're offering to shelter a Bengali family in your house?

No?

And that's the general problem. Refugees by the millions can't just pack up and move to someone else's land.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2019)

Famous warmer weasel words:


Could
May
Might
Potentially
Possibly           
The science is settled!


----------



## harmonica (Feb 11, 2019)

mamooth said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > it's not like people won't be able to get to higher terrain
> ...


...fK no--fk them--tough shit I'm not taking anyone in and by the way that's STUPID--I'm INLAND --very far!!!  they don't need to come this far 
...if I got hit by an earthquake/tornado no one would give a shit
tough shit


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2019)

You don't think people would help you?  I think you'd be disappointed there.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> 
> and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.
> 
> There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime. But you keep on fighting to keep the coal business alive and your good friends in the oil industry pocketing their billions and billions.



Yet another failed model...how many climate models must fail before you realize that they have it wrong?...absolutely wrong....the models are based on a terribly flawed model of energy moving through the atmosphere...a model in which the earth is able to warm itself with its own radiation...a model that has experienced predictive failure after predictive failure after predictive failure...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > NOTHING associated with "Global Warming" (or whatever the Leftists want to call it this week) will happen so rapidly that we humans will be unable to timely react.  The seas may rise, and some land will be covered with water.  Some of Florida, maybe. Some South Pacific islands.  But New York City and Boston will somehow be protected, as will Venice, Italy, New Orleans, and so on.
> ...



More bullshit claims pulled out of your ass...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2019)

cnm said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > You get taken in by this bullshit claims we have all seen the evidence that your organizations LIE about what they are saying they have been caught time and again.
> ...



Any idea how old it is?  Any idea of its long term behavior?  Any idea at all or is hysterical handwaving all you have?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> I will add this to my collection.  Yours is the 23rd denier post suggesting someone commit suicide.  How morally elevated of you all.



That is a far cry from your suggestion that skeptics simply be killed...interesting that you still can't differentiate between demonstrating the courage of your convictions, and simply killing another person...flawed liberal thinking on parade..


----------



## fncceo (Feb 12, 2019)

mamooth said:


> So you're offering to shelter a Bengali family in your house?



They don't have hills in India?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Under Way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica
> 
> *Antarctic Collapse*
> The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is particularly vulnerable to ocean warming-induced collapse. The Thwaites Glacier of West Antarctica is one of the largest WAIS regional contributors to sea level rise, and has been considered to be potentially unstable for many years. *Joughin et al.* (p. 735) used a combination of a numerical model and observations of its recent geometry and movement to investigate the stability of the Thwaites Glacier. The glacier has already entered the early stages of collapse, and rapid and irreversible collapse is likely in the next 200 to 1000 years.
> ...



More bullshit that is good enough to fool you and set you to waving your hands hysterically...  Here..have a look at Thwaites Glacier..  Thwaites glacier is a speck on the continent of antarctica.....is there any pseudoscience that doesn't fool you and send you off into hysterical handwaving fits?








And if the scale of that isn't enough to demonstrate what a hysterical hand waving ninny you are, try this


----------



## mamooth (Feb 12, 2019)

fncceo said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So you're offering to shelter a Bengali family in your house?
> ...



First, you might want to note that Bangladesh and India are not the same country.

Second, in Bangladesh, they essentially don't have hills. Most of the nation is flood plain. And if the ocean busts through an area even once and salts the earth, the farmland is dead, and the population has to move.


----------



## Crick (Feb 12, 2019)

It appears that you accept that Thwaites may collapse catastrophically.  That's a step forward.  Now you need to wake up to the fact that the  contention is not only Thwaites will collapse, it is the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> It appears that you accept that Thwaites may collapse catastrophically.  That's a step forward.  Now you need to wake up to the fact that the  contention is not only Thwaites will collapse, it is the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.


The melt is due to volcanic activity beneath the ice...what do you propose we do about it other than adapt?  If it collapses, then it has been in the works since the Holocene optimum...it has nothing whatsoever to do with us, or our activities...


----------



## Crick (Feb 12, 2019)

It has to do with warming ocean waters having undermined the icesheet, whose bottom is below sea level and pushed the grounding line back.  Those ocean waters were warmed by the greenhouse effect acting on GHGs added to the atmosphere by human activities.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> You've got several things going on there.  Overall, the shelves have been crumbling.  However, those remaining intact have been growing in area.  That is primarily due to the acceleration of the glaciers ashore pushing more and more ice out off the coast.  Temperatures ashore and in the sea have been rising.  Given all that, I would not extrapolate from this one location to the entire coast of Antarctica.  It might, but I wouldn't bet on it with the cards you have in your hand right now.


you mean while Australia was at 120 degree F, the ice in Antarctica was growing.  some things don't get any better than that.  hmmmmmmmm  you lied crick!!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> It has to do with warming ocean waters having undermined the icesheet, whose bottom is below sea level and pushed the grounding line back.  Those ocean waters were warmed by the greenhouse effect acting on GHGs added to the atmosphere by human activities.



Sorry skid mark..it is due to volcanic activity...  the fact is that the west antarctic rift system may well be the largest active volcanic systems on earth....so far ore than 90 volcanoes have been detected.  The very idea that what bit of regional warming the earth has seen in the past 100 years could have any statistical effect greater than zero on antarctica is laughable and the fact that you buy into it is just one more piece of unimpeachable evidence that you are very easily fooled.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 14, 2019)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The last time I saw a sea level rise budget come close to being balanced was was done around 2010 when the big drop occurred.
> ...


is mm feet?  What was it old Al said about the oceans?


----------



## Crick (Feb 14, 2019)

That volcanoes under the WAIS may be accelerating its collapse is not something that should make you feel any more comfortable.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> That volcanoes under the WAIS may be accelerating its collapse is not something that should make you feel any more comfortable.


Now atmospheric CO2 causes undersea volcanoes?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> That volcanoes under the WAIS may be accelerating its collapse is not something that should make you feel any more comfortable.



Like I said, skidmark...what do you suggest that we do about volcanoes melting ice other than adapt?  This is in no way attributable to anything that humans have done or are doing...if the collapse of that ice sheet is an impending catastrophe, I would suggest that we start funneling the billions upon billions being wasted by climate science into adaptation to the result of the ice sheet collapse.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Like I said, skidmark...what do you suggest that we do about volcanoes melting ice other than adapt?



This is where the non-retards point out there's no evidence for your cult conspiracy about volcanoes.

Now you'll shout "Derpderpderpderpderp but look at these volcanoes!", thus confirming your retard status.

Showing that old volcanoes exist shows nothing. Those volcanoes have been around for at least thousands of years, and they're part of the status quo. The ice happily existed along with those volcanoes for thousands of years. It's only in the past few decades that the Antarctic ice started declining.

In order for your retard theory to make sense, regional vulcanism would have had to recently increased by 100 fold in the past few decades. You've given zero evidence of that, thus all the non-retards are laughing at you.

And since that would require a grade-school level intellect to understand, you won't be able to understand it, so you'll just start screaming at people to cover up for your failure.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2019)

mamooth said:


> This is where the non-retards point out there's no evidence for your cult conspiracy about volcanoes.
> 
> Now you'll shout "Derpderpderpderpderp but look at these volcanoes!", thus confirming your retard status.
> 
> ...



You are the true denier hairball...the volcanoes under the west antarctic ice shelf are not dormant...they are active...and how long do you think you can have ice constantly melting before it becomes noticeable...The ice is declining from the bottom hairball...not the top.

Active volcano discovered beneath Antarctic ice sheet could be rapidly melting glacier
Previously unsuspected volcanic activity confirmed under West Antarctic Ice Sheet at Pine Island Glacier | NSF - National Science Foundation
Giant volcanoes lurk beneath Antarctic ice
Researchers discover volcanic heat source under major Antarctic glacier

And since the volcanoes have just been recently discovered...we have no idea how long they have been active...nor what sort of effect has been building or for how long...it is pure denial to suggest that mankind is responsible for ice loss when the ice is sitting on top of active volcanoes...


----------



## Crick (Feb 16, 2019)

Did all those volcanoes appear in the last century?  If not, then, as Mamooth told you, they are part of the status quo.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> Did all those volcanoes appear in the last century?  If not, then, as Mamooth told you, they are part of the status quo.



We have no idea when they appeared....the elevation on several of them suggest that they have been around for quiet some time...the entire area is active and we have recorded no unusual seismic activity since scientific activity became a constant down there so that suggests that they have been there, and been active all along...  The melting is happening from the bottom, not the top so it is the volcanoes that are responsible...not us as much as you would like it to be so.  It is simply business as usual on planet earth...we are not the end all and be all...we don't drive the climate, we don't drive volcanic activity, we don't drive tectonic activity, we are along for the ride....luckily we are the most adaptable creatures to have ever inhabited the planet.


----------



## Crick (Feb 16, 2019)

If the volcanoes did not appear in the last century, they are not responsible for the behavior of the last century. Ocean warming has destabilized the ice shelves and the ice sheets behind them.  The WAIS is going to collapse catastrophically within the next few decades and sea level will rise by meters, not centimeters.  You remember. when this happens. who said it would and who said it would not.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> If the volcanoes did not appear in the last century, they are not responsible for the behavior of the last century. Ocean warming has destabilized the ice shelves and the ice sheets behind them.  The WAIS is going to collapse catastrophically within the next few decades and sea level will rise by meters, not centimeters.  You remember. when this happens. who said it would and who said it would not.



Of course you have no idea whether that is true or not...just more bullshit pulled out of your ass.  And if it does collapse, and sea level rises, it will not mean you are right in your belief that man caused it...it just means that you are a blind squirrel congratulating himself on finding a nut.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 17, 2019)

All we know for certain is that our CO2 caused the 3 undersea volcanoes and the only fix is to surrender our freedom and property to a One World government


----------



## Death Angel (Feb 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> 
> and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.
> 
> There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime. But you keep on fighting to keep the coal business alive and your good friends in the oil industry pocketing their billions and billions.


FRon your lips to God's ears! I want a tropical planet!


----------



## Crick (Feb 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> If the volcanoes did not appear in the last century, they are not responsible for the behavior of the last century. Ocean warming has destabilized the ice shelves and the ice sheets behind them.  The WAIS is going to collapse catastrophically within the next few decades and sea level will rise by meters, not centimeters.  You remember. when this happens. who said it would and who said it would not.





SSDD said:


> Of course you have no idea whether that is true or not...just more bullshit pulled out of your ass.  And if it does collapse, and sea level rises, it will not mean you are right in your belief that man caused it...it just means that you are a blind squirrel congratulating himself on finding a nut.



That Manhattan-sized void under Thwaites - no volcanoes.  It seems large amounts of ice can melt without the volcanic heating.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > If the volcanoes did not appear in the last century, they are not responsible for the behavior of the last century. Ocean warming has destabilized the ice shelves and the ice sheets behind them.  The WAIS is going to collapse catastrophically within the next few decades and sea level will rise by meters, not centimeters.  You remember. when this happens. who said it would and who said it would not.
> ...




And yet more bullshit pulled out of your ass...Do you ever look anything up or do you just make it all up as you go?

Volcanic activity under Thwaites Glacier contributes to melting

Clip:  It is the geology which is responsible for sub-glacial melting. Western Antarctica is geologically active. Scientists believe there is a rift system under the ice, similar to the Rift Valley of east Africa. This rift system involves increased magma movements in the crust and possibly volcanism at the glacier base, similar to volcanoes in Iceland.

Previously unsuspected volcanic activity confirmed under West Antarctic Ice Sheet at Pine Island Glacier | NSF - National Science Foundation

Clip:  They also note that volcanic activity could be increasing the rate of collapse of the Thwaites Glacier, which is adjacent to the Pine Island Glacier.

Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier

Clip:  Considering the abundance of volcano-like features along the WARS, ice sheet contact with a volcanic heat source is the mostly likely source of excess 3He. Volcanism in the WARS was most active around 30 Ma before present, but there is evidence of more recent eruptions. *The adjacent Thwaites glacier, which drains to the Amundsen Sea, shows strong radar returns that indicate subglacial meltwater, suggesting volcanism and high localized heat flux.
*
It isn't as if this were obscure, hard to find information...it is readily available to anyone who doesn't simply gobble up whatever bullshit alarmist feed them.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 18, 2019)

A non-moron would note that there's no sign of elevated temperatures in the oceans immediately over those volcanoes. Hence, they're not melting any ice. Their heat output is so comparatively tiny, it doesn't even register in the ocean environment.

Let's run some numbers.

Latent heat of melting for water = 334 kJ/Kg

Mass of ice melting = 219 E12 kg/year

That makes 73 E15 kJ/year energy being used to melt ice.

The volcanic output of the whole planet was estimated at 5E13 kJ/year for 2001.

Satellite tots up volcanic heat : Nature News

So, the Antarctic ice melt alone would require 1400 times the global volcanic heat output of a "quiet" volcanic year.

Now, a large volcano will release much more heat, but it would be impossible to miss such eruptions. According to SSDD's theory, there would have to be dozens of Mt St. Helens scale eruptions going off every year under the ice, suddenly starting just a few decades ago, but we've never been able to detect them. Being that's a nonsensical theory, everyone laughs at it.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 18, 2019)

Crick said:


> Off topic.  If you want to complain about China's GHG emissions, start your own thread.



Deflection noted and dismissed with extreme prejudice.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 18, 2019)

mamooth said:


> A non-moron would note that there's no sign of elevated temperatures in the oceans immediately over those volcanoes. Hence, they're not melting any ice. Their heat output is so comparatively tiny, it doesn't even register in the ocean environment.
> 
> Let's run some numbers.
> 
> ...


So you're saying atmospheric CO2 melted the ice????

Really?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 19, 2019)

mamooth said:


> A non-moron would note that there's no sign of elevated temperatures in the oceans immediately over those volcanoes. Hence, they're not melting any ice. Their heat output is so comparatively tiny, it doesn't even register in the ocean environment.
> 
> Let's run some numbers.
> 
> ...



Sooooo, you're telling us that 120PPM  of CO2 generates at least 73E15kJ/year. 

This should be a piece of cake to show us the lab work, right?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2019)

mamooth said:


> A non-moron would note that there's no sign of elevated temperatures in the oceans immediately over those volcanoes. Hence, they're not melting any ice. Their heat output is so comparatively tiny, it doesn't even register in the ocean environment.
> 
> Let's run some numbers.
> 
> ...



Poor hairball....is it that you are to stupid to actually look beyond the information given to you by your high priests?...or is it more of a theological issue with you...do you think it is unseemly, or improper for a lay person to question what one of the high priests tells you?  Or is it just that much easier to be a dupe?

Cleary you didn't read any of the information I provided regarding the volcanic activity under the western antarctic.  Instead, you go back to an old article published before science even started looking in any real way for volcanic activity under antarctica. Your article is from 2004, scientists weren't even clued into volcanic activity under the WAIS till 2007...What a dupe..

Here, from the first source I provided:

Clip:  Subglacial meltwater movement under the Thwaites Glacier was mapped with radar-based methods. The result is that meltwater production is very unevenly distributed. This can be used to calculate* the geothermal heat flux under the glacier, which reaches values up to 200 milliwatts per square metre while averaging near 100 over the whole area.* In comparison, the average value for all continents on Earth is just near 65 milliwatts per square metre.

Don Blankenship, scientists of the University of Texas and one of the author of a recently published study, described the Thwaites Glacier as follows: The glacier “sits on something more like a multi-burner stovetop with burners putting out heat at different levels at different locations. …


Here, from the second source...the national science foundation...you guys reference them all the time...

Clip:  Tracing a chemical signature of helium in seawater, an international team of scientists funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the United Kingdom's (U.K.) Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) has *discovered a previously unknown volcanic hotspot beneath the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet* (WAIS).

*The researchers first noted the volcanic activity in 2007 and verified its existence again in 2014.
*
"Our finding of a substantial heat source beneath a major WAIS glacier highlights the need to understand subglacial volcanism, its interaction with the marine margins and its potential role in the future stability of the WAIS,” they write in the _Nature Communications_ article.

They also note that volcanic activity could be increasing the rate of collapse of the Thwaites Glacier, which is adjacent to the Pine Island Glacier.


And from the third source...also from Nature...but publshed in 2018 rather than 2004.....

Clip:  Here we show geochemical evidence of a volcanic heat source upstream of the fast-melting Pine Island Ice Shelf, documented by seawater helium isotope ratios at the front of the Ice Shelf cavity. The localization of mantle helium to glacial meltwater reveals that volcanic heat induces melt beneath the grounded glacier and feeds the subglacial hydrological network crossing the grounding line. The observed transport of mantle helium out of the Ice Shelf cavity indicates that volcanic heat is supplied to the grounded glacier at a rate of ~ 2500 ± 1700 MW, which is ca. half as large as the active Grimsvötn volcano on Iceland. Our finding of a substantial volcanic heat source beneath a major WAIS glacier highlights the need to understand subglacial volcanism, its hydrologic interaction with the marine margins, and its potential role in the future stability of the WAIS.


Plenty of modern, credible evidence of volcanic activity under the glacier and in your irrational state of denial, you refer to information published several years before volcanic activity under antarctica was any more than a tiny blip on the radar.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > A non-moron would note that there's no sign of elevated temperatures in the oceans immediately over those volcanoes. Hence, they're not melting any ice. Their heat output is so comparatively tiny, it doesn't even register in the ocean environment.
> ...



Did you notice that the hairball's source was issued in 2004?  Three years before volcanic activity under Antarctica became a topic of real interest?  How deep in denial must one be to ignore information published in 2018 and rely on information published in 2004 in order to maintain the narrative in one's mind?


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2019)

How deep in denial must one be to construct an interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that violates damn near every other law of physics just so you can use it to reject the concept of greenhouse warming?

There is no reason anyone should be engaging with you in any discussion involving basic science.  You are a troll and absolutely, positively nothing more.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> How deep in denial must one be to construct an interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that violates damn near every other law of physics just so you can use it to reject the concept of greenhouse warming?
> 
> There is no reason anyone should be engaging with you in any discussion involving basic science.  You are a troll and absolutely, positively nothing more.


Even after all the proof that volcanic activity has caused the ice melt.


----------



## Chiara (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> 
> and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.
> 
> There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime. But you keep on fighting to keep the coal business alive and your good friends in the oil industry pocketing their billions and billions.


Hopefully this climate model is wrong. Otherwise this could be a real tragedy for the whole world.
Anyways I tend to be optimistic about climate change. Maybe our technology could solve the problem in the future (if the coutries of the entire planet are willing to do that...)


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2019)

Being optimistic is fine.  But you want to make certain that you remain objective about real world threats.  Humans are pretty poor at accurate threat assessment.  People often fear things with minute odds of occurrence but take little thought to walking in front of a bus.  The West Antarctic Ice Sheet IS going to disintegrate.  The question is when and how quickly.  The initial estimates concluded that it would take a couple of centuries - still not a good thing given the magnitude of the sea level rise.  But the process of its disintegration is one with a significant amount of chaos - unpredictable factors and responses.

I would not buy property with an elevation of less than 10 meters.


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Even after all the proof that volcanic activity has caused the ice melt.



There is no "proof" that volcanoes have caused the ice melt.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Even after all the proof that volcanic activity has caused the ice melt.
> ...



Do you concur with Mamooth heat generated by atmospheric CO2 assessment?  Those are some pretty big claims


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I didn't notice.  Thank you.

I'm still waiting for him to show us how atmospheric CO2 generates that heat...maybe cold CO2 fusion?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


heat at what, -20 degrees F?  hahahaahahahaha


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Even after all the proof that volcanic activity has caused the ice melt.
> ...


There is no "proof" that CO2 has caused ice melt..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> How deep in denial must one be to construct an interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that violates damn near every other law of physics just so you can use it to reject the concept of greenhouse warming?



Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that have I "constructed" or otherwise altered?  I agree with every word of that statement...you on the other hand don't so it is you and yours who have constructed some alternate version of the second law that allows energy to move spontaneously from cool objects to warm objects.

And do tell skidmark....what other laws of physics does that statement violate?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2019)

Chiara said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> ...



Have you seen any observed, measured evidence that suggests that there IS a problem?  There is not the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...if natural variability is a problem, then adaptation is the only solution whether it be towards warmer or cooler.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Even after all the proof that volcanic activity has caused the ice melt.
> ...



Active volcanoes under the ice and you still hold on to the idea that CO2 is causing the problem?  How much more stupid can you get?


----------



## MAGAman (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
> 
> and this story is almost three years old.  They knew nothing of the enormous cavity now found under Thwaites within the WAIS.[Giant hole in Antarctic's Thwaites Glacier: "Disturbing" discovery as  a giant hole was found under Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier - CBS News]  WAIS movement rate has recently been characterized as "explosive"  Potentially 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and rise continuing through the following century at one foot per decade.
> 
> There's a good chance your children will see major coastal cities abandoned in their lifetime. But you keep on fighting to keep the coal business alive and your good friends in the oil industry pocketing their billions and billions.


 They dissapeared already. Didn't you hear?


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2019)

Follow us?  That sounds like an advertisement.


----------



## MAGAman (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> Follow us?  That sounds like an advertisement.


Yes..Quoting Kerry's statement in Huff post.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


and he claims it isn't warm above the active volcanoes.  not warm.  there's fire but no heat. hmmmmmm


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Must be CO2 down there beaming the heat back into the volcano


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2019)

Must be warm seawater melting the grounding line further and further back.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Must be warm seawater melting the grounding line further and further back.



So you believe CO2 is melting the ice from below rather than volcanic heat...  That doesn't surprise me in the slightest...you are exactly that stupid...I don't suppose the warmer water under the sea ice could be due to the run off from the water melting due to contact with magma and the super heated steam that results...that couldn't be a possibility, could it?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

You think you're going to find steam at the bottom of the Antarctic ice sheet?  Every day and in every way, you display your ignorance over and over and over again.

I am certain some amount of ice is being melted by geothermal heat somewhere.  But the WAIS is being destabilized by ocean water warmed by AGW.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


making the volcano warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> You think you're going to find steam at the bottom of the Antarctic ice sheet?  Every day and in every way, you display your ignorance over and over and over again.
> 
> I am certain some amount of ice is being melted by geothermal heat somewhere.  But the WAIS is being destabilized by ocean water warmed by AGW.


so you don't think ice hitting magma will steam?  hmmmmmmm


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Must be warm seawater melting the grounding line further and further back.



Do you even know what a grounding line is?  You keep saying it, but I see no evidence you understand what it is or why it is important.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You think you're going to find steam at the bottom of the Antarctic ice sheet?  Every day and in every way, you display your ignorance over and over and over again.
> ...



 I guess he is unfamiliar with the term "sublimation".


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


he is unfamiliar with a lot.  he still doesn't understand what 'observation' means.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Must be warm seawater melting the grounding line further and further back.
> ...



The point at which the ice sheet detaches from the continental surface (headed out).  This is the point to which seawater has intruded and where it continues to intrude due to the isostatic depression of the continental surface.  Good enough for you Admiral?


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Feb 20, 2019)

Have we not heard this all before?

Top 5 failed ‘snow free’ and ‘ice free’ predictions


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Have we not heard this all before?
> 
> Top 5 failed ‘snow free’ and ‘ice free’ predictions


cold doesn't count in the AGW hysteria.  Australia is the globe.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Really?  You think ice over a thousand feet down will SUBLIMATE?  Is that really what you want to say?


----------



## Pete7469 (Feb 20, 2019)

The north pole was supposed to have melted a decade ago. When will the bed wetters stop with this bullshit?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Have we not heard this all before?
> 
> Top 5 failed ‘snow free’ and ‘ice free’ predictions



Comfort yourself as you wish, but the world is getting warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Have we not heard this all before?
> ...


not based off of anything observed.  too fking funny.  The earth is cooling.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


@Johnlaw  does earth's surface emit IR?  What happens when something emits?  hmmmm are you going to avoid?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

I'm beginning to think that it is not possible to participate in a discussion from an AGW denier position without trolling.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> I'm beginning to think that it is not possible to participate in a discussion from an AGW denier position without trolling.



You are just as bad as SSDD, only at the other end of the spectrum. 

Personally I think SSDD is smarter than you. But I must admit he is deluded. You don't think for yourself so you can't be deluded, just duped. Which you are.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> You think you're going to find steam at the bottom of the Antarctic ice sheet?  Every day and in every way, you display your ignorance over and over and over again.
> 
> I am certain some amount of ice is being melted by geothermal heat somewhere.  But the WAIS is being destabilized by ocean water warmed by AGW.




You think you can set ice on magma and not get steam...or melt water run off?  Really?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



So you can read a definition and post it here...that doesn't mean that you have any idea what it means...much as you can post a graph here, but rarely, if ever know what they say.

How about you square your belief that CO2 is causing the ice to melt in antarctica when it is well known that the southern oceans are cooling and have been for some time...the only place the water is warmer is in the region of the volcanic rift...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


so what is it you believe happens when ice hits magma?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm beginning to think that it is not possible to participate in a discussion from an AGW denier position without trolling.
> ...



Most everyone is smarter than crick...but I am not deluded.....all observed, measured evidence supports my position...the only thing that supports yours is unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



He thinks the magma gets warmer if there is any CO2 in the ice...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Have we not heard this all before?
> ...


Yeah, right now the East is under a blanket of snow, but the world is getting warmer...…..


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


but you're not observing that to him.  cause he has no clue what observation means.  too fking funny.  

BTW, last time he commented on something like this, he brought up Australia.  like Australia is the globe and that cold is not global warming.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



Yes, the world is getting warmer.  Or did you think the east coast of the US is the entire planet?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


how is it getting warmer?  the earth is always cooling off.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


where is world getting warmer?  Australia?  lol.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

I really begin to believe that JC456 is pretending to be this stupid because he's trolling.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> I really begin to believe that JC456 is pretending to be this stupid because he's trolling.


and yet there is you!!!  the guy that doesn't even know what 'observed' meaning is.  love it.  LOL


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

If Greenland and all of Antarctica melted, sea levels would rise by 220 feet.  Every coastal city would be inundated and the land area of the planet would be reduced by roughly 1/3rd.  Trivial problem, right?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> If Greenland and all of Antarctica melted, sea levels would rise by 220 feet.  Every coastal city would be inundated and the land area of the planet would be reduced by roughly 1/3rd.  Trivial problem, right?


So you believe that can happen at once?


----------



## mamooth (Feb 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Poor hairball..



Yep, Pisschugger here really is that delusional. He's actually claiming that, a few decades ago, volcanic activity around Antarctica suddenly increased more than a thousand-fold, without manifesting any sign of that thousand-fold increase except more land ice melt. Wow. That's even dumber than his smart photon theory.



> ..is it that you are to stupid



Pisschugger, a theory about space aliens melting Antarctic ice would literally be less stupid than your latest hallucination here.

Now, run along, as your masters have more propaganda ready to trickle down your eager throat.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> If Greenland and all of Antarctica melted, sea levels would rise by 220 feet.  Every coastal city would be inundated and the land area of the planet would be reduced by roughly 1/3rd.  Trivial problem, right?




And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride...what's your point?  Antarctica and Greenland both survived the Holocene Optimum...and the temperatures were a great deal warmer during that period than they are today...you alarmists are nothing more than hand waving hysterics...


----------



## mamooth (Feb 20, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm still waiting for him to show us how atmospheric CO2 generates that heat...maybe cold CO2 fusion?



Frank, as you're the only one here declaring that CO2 generates heat, you're the one responsible for explaining such an idiot theory. I won't try to figure out where you got such a stupid idea, being that risks sanity. When you gaze into the stupid, the stupid gazes back into you.

Now, the non-morons know that the heat comes from the sun. Remember that big shiny thing? I know you're dumb, but try to put some limit on it.



> Sooooo, you're telling us that 120PPM of CO2 generates at least 73E15kJ/year.



Earth's total heat gain is now around 8E18 kJ/year, so there's plenty left over after melting the Antarctic ice.

Hard data, Frank. It backs us up. That's why we never have to troll and evade, and it's why all any denier here is capable of is trolling and evasions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 20, 2019)

First the Arctic is ice free, Guam tipped over and now this


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Poor hairball..
> ...



Women shouldn't try and make up names for people...when you do, it just makes you sound stupid...hairball on the other hand, made up by a man is fun to say, and quite funny.  

And science itself says that it has no idea how long these volcanoes may have been active, or how active...maybe you should call them up and tell them that you know for certain when they became active, and how active they are...

The fact is, hairball, that the region may well be the most densely populated volcanic region on the face of the earth, and we are just beginning to learn about it...for you to suggest that you have the faintest idea of what has been going on beneath the ice, or for how long is just more unsupportable bullshit...

It is hilarious to see who the real deniers are whenever actual science rears its head and steps on one of your idiotic beliefs...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> First the Arctic is ice free, Guam tipped over and now this



It's terrible I tell you....just terrible.  I remember when the world wasn't coming to an end....it's just terrible...wringing hands and waving them hysterically....


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Antarctica and Greenland both survived the Holocene Optimum...and the temperatures were a great deal warmer during that period than they are today...you alarmists are nothing more than hand waving hysterics...



False.  And the data in this plot only go to 2000.  Current temperatures are another 0.4C higher than the upper end of this red line - above the top of the first line of text in this post.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Antarctica and Greenland both survived the Holocene Optimum...and the temperatures were a great deal warmer during that period than they are today...you alarmists are nothing more than hand waving hysterics...
> ...




I bet you actually believe that bullshit...hell, I know you believe it...must suck to be such a dupe...


----------



## mamooth (Feb 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Women shouldn't try and make up names for people...



Struck a nerve, eh pisschugger? Someone's little fetishes were just revealed.

So, you're whimpering now over being called a name, after calling me names. A saying about heat and kitchens comes to mind. Notice how I never start the name calling? That's because I can always ream you on the science. I only give it back to you when you try dish it out, so the entire whole board can laugh at what a snowflake hypocrite you are.

It's also telling that you think "woman" is an insult. You poor thing, you clearly have major issues with women. Not all deniers are misogynist losers, but many are. That quality tends to go along with being a hardcore authoritarian cultist.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Women shouldn't try and make up names for people...
> ...



Nah...just offering a stupid old woman some advice so that she doesn't look like such an idiot...who the hell would even think to say such nonsense?  Surely you can do better than that...it shows no imagination, or humor on your part...but if that's the best you can do...then that's the best you can do...carry on...



mamooth said:


> So, you're whimpering now over being called a name, after calling me names. A saying about heat and kitchens comes to mind. Notice how I never start the name calling? That's because I can always ream you on the science. I only give it back to you when you try dish it out, so the entire whole board can laugh at what a snowflake hypocrite you are.



Not at all hairball...just suggesting that you might could do better...think up something that demonstrates a bit of imagination...and maybe a bit of humor...the names you come up with reflect nothing more than omnidirectional anger flowing from the mind of a dullard...no pizzaz whatsoever...



mamooth said:


> It's also telling that you think "woman" is an insult. You poor thing, you clearly have major issues with women. Not all deniers are misogynist losers, but many are. That quality tends to go along with being a hardcore authoritarian cultist.



Again...not at all...you are an insult to women in general...most of the women I know are not bitter old biddies who are angry at everyone who doesn't agree with them....and generally speaking, they aren't liars, nor are they stupid.  You are an outlier...The conclusions you jump to demonstrate your lack of critical thinking skills....they speak volumes about the intimidation you feel from anyone who disagrees with you and the deep levels of anger and resentment you project.

If you had any self esteem at all, anger, resentment, spite, and plain old hatefulness would not be your go to mode of communication...you are a study in how not to be...


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

That you insist on calling Mamooth a woman as an insult should get you banned for blatant misogyny.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 20, 2019)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting for him to show us how atmospheric CO2 generates that heat...maybe cold CO2 fusion?
> ...


Are you walking back your energy audit? Already? Wow.

You thought you were so clever too


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Poor hairball..
> ...


Nothing says defeat like that post


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You still have not explained why that matters.  Ice that floats will never raise sea level by a millimeter.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You have no idea what sublimation means or you would not say something stupid like that.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> I'm beginning to think that it is not possible to participate in a discussion from an AGW denier position without trolling.



Stop trolling then, dumbass!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> If Greenland and all of Antarctica melted, sea levels would rise by 220 feet.  Every coastal city would be inundated and the land area of the planet would be reduced by roughly 1/3rd.  Trivial problem, right?



Link to that data.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> That you insist on calling Mamooth a woman as an insult should get you banned for blatant misogyny.



She is a woman...are you unable to read that in her language?...particularly in the sort of insult she hurls?  Women think of, and view the process of insulting someone quite differently than men.  Clumsy language is typical in angry unintelligent  women...they are trying to project an image and don't let use of the language get in the way of that image...Smart women on the other hand can deliver an insult to you and sometimes you won't even know that you have been insulted for days...my wife is a master of it.....the hairball is not a smart woman.  She is stupid, angry, and intimidated by anyone who disagrees with her...she lacks anything like a normal level of self esteem...

Or she is one of the most effeminate men I have ever spoken to.  I doubt it though...even effeminate men don't trip over images trying to deliver an insult...a good insult rolls off the tongue....it doesn't come out like a sand covered, spike encrusted loogie...


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2019)

What?  Me worry?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> What?  Me worry?


----------



## Chiara (Feb 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Chiara said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


No I've never seen any evidence of the climate change. 
I just suppose scientists know what they're talking about. Or at least I hope that...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Chiara said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Chiara said:
> ...


so you don't care if they're wrong?  you can't research and see they are?  Are we skiing in the Arctic?  How about Chicago right now?  Minnesota cities?  name a place they've mentioned as changed climate.  See, in the world we have four seasons and the climate changes to the tilt of the globe.  So yes climate changes,  but what they are saying is that climate has changed, that somewhere the climate isn't what it was.  Now I just want you to point to that area of the globe they state.


----------



## Chiara (Feb 21, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Chiara said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I know the entire globe is not like Antarctica but some climatologists say there's climate change but we can't feel it (for now), only their computers can do that. I don't know if this is true or not but I'm not a climatologist. Scientists should know what they say when they talk about climate change.
I only hope they're honest and skilled


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Chiara said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Chiara said:
> ...


well then you are a sucker.  Why does it take money to stop what it is you can't see and depend on a computer for?  I will never depend on a computer software designed by man that says more money will solve a problem


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2019)

Chiara said:


> No I've never seen any evidence of the climate change.
> I just suppose scientists know what they're talking about. Or at least I hope that...






Chiara said:


> I know the entire globe is not like Antarctica but some climatologists say there's climate change but we can't feel it (for now), only their computers can do that. I don't know if this is true or not but I'm not a climatologist. Scientists should know what they say when they talk about climate change.
> I only hope they're honest and skilled



Evidence of climate change.  These are generated from observations.  They are not computer models, they are displays of what has already happened.:


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Chiara said:
> 
> 
> > No I've never seen any evidence of the climate change.
> ...


you don't explain what those pictures tell her.


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2019)

They show her the Arctic melting away and the Earth getting warmer and warmer. Are you so stupid you couldn't tell that? No one's that stupid.  You're just trolling.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> They show her the Arctic melting away and the Earth getting warmer and warmer. Are you so stupid you couldn't tell that? No one's that stupid.  You're just trolling.


how so?  you have no idea why ice is melting in the arctic.  you have no evidence that a red and orange picture means the globe is warming.  too fking funny.  you are truly a kick troll.  truly

You do understand that warm water will cause ice to melt?  and that IR can melt ice even at -20 degree F.


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2019)

All I showed her is that ice is melting in the Arctic and the world is getting warmer.

You are SO stupid, it is difficult to have a conversation with you


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> All I showed her is that ice is melting in the Arctic and the world is getting warmer.
> 
> You are SO stupid, it is difficult to have a conversation with you


no you didn't, ice has always melted in the arctic and the warm has been warmer.  so you stated no such thing at all.


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2019)

It would really be in everyone's best interest if you were to leave this website and go back to school.


----------



## westwall (Feb 21, 2019)

Wow, there's that magic "could" again.   The real answer is "certainly won't "

Sent from my SM-G892A using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2019)

You once again display your ignorance of basic science and the scientific method.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> What?  Me worry?



Let's suppose you are right and all of that brown area and green areas melt.  The vast, and I say again vast majority of the water will be taken up by filling in that massive area below sea level.  Until that happens, the oceans will not rise one millimeter!


----------



## Marion Morrison (Feb 22, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What?  Me worry?
> ...



Ice loses volume when it melts.


----------



## Crick (Feb 22, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What?  Me worry?
> ...




Sorry, but that is incorrect.  The ice sheet there is thousands of feet thick.  It is not IN the ocean, it is not being supported by buoyancy.  The volume of the ice there is many, many times the volume of the isostatic depression.  When sea water pushes under there and that ice crumbles into the sea, the world's oceans will rise by 11-16 feet.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Really? How deep is that depression ? You have no clue do you?  That is such a small percentage of the Earth's surface, where do you come up with 11-16 feet now when you claimed it was much more than that earlier?


----------



## Crick (Feb 22, 2019)

My comments earlier described the sea level rise that could be expected if ALL of Greenland and ALL of Antarctica were to melt.

The source for the sea level rise I noted above concerned only the melting of the WAIS and came from:
West Antarctic Ice Sheet - Wikipedia

Which was also the source of the following.

_It is estimated that the volume of the Antarctic ice sheet is about 25.4 million km3 (6.1 million cu mi), and the WAIS contains just under 10% of this, or 2.2 million km3 (530,000 cu mi).[1] The weight of the ice has caused the underlying rock to sink by between 0.5 and 1 kilometre (0.31 and 0.62 miles)[2] in a process known as isostatic depression.

Under the force of its own weight, the ice sheet deforms and flows. The interior ice flows slowly over rough bedrock. In some circumstances, ice can flow faster in ice streams, separated by slow-flowing ice ridges. The inter-stream ridges are frozen to the bed while the bed beneath the ice streams consists of water-saturated sediments. Many of these sediments were deposited before the ice sheet occupied the region, when much of West Antarctica was covered by the ocean. The rapid ice-stream flow is a non-linear process still not fully understood; streams can start and stop for unclear reasons.

When ice reaches the coast, it either calves or continues to flow outward onto the water. The result is a large, floating ice shelf affixed to the continent.[3]_

*References*

*^* Lythe, Matthew B.; Vaughan, David G. (June 2001). "BEDMAP: A new ice thickness and subglacial topographic model of Antarctica". _Journal of Geophysical Research_. *106* (B6): 11335–11352. Bibcode:2001JGR...10611335L. doi:10.1029/2000JB900449.
*^* Anderson, John B. (1999). _Antarctic marine geology_. Cambridge University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-521-59317-5.
*^* Ice Shelves, Antarctic and Southern Ocean CoalitionArchived February 3, 2006, at the Wayback Machine


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 22, 2019)

I'm still unclear how atmospheric CO2 melts undersea ice


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> West Antarctic Ice Sheet - Wikipedia
> 
> Also the source of
> 
> ...



Great source!  Not!  Do you know what "citation needed" means?  It's a BS flag!



Now, if you would actually read and understand what it says, what are you going to do about it when the impact is nowhere near the gloom and doom projections of nimrods who suck at math?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> You once again display your ignorance of basic science and the scientific method.


Scientific method would test temperature variance by eliminating all variables except for the wisp of CO2  your Cult alleges will end all life on Earth; it's called Lab Work.

Got any?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> It would really be in everyone's best interest if you were to leave this website and go back to school.


That’s a statement a loser makes


----------



## jc456 (Feb 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> You once again display your ignorance of basic science and the scientific method.


Says the idot with only models


----------



## jc456 (Feb 22, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > West Antarctic Ice Sheet - Wikipedia
> ...


Nothing


----------



## Pete7469 (Feb 22, 2019)

Chiara said:


> I know the entire globe is not like Antarctica but some climatologists say there's climate change but we can't feel it (for now), only their computers can do that. I don't know if this is true or not but I'm not a climatologist. Scientists should know what they say when they talk about climate change.
> I only hope they're honest and skilled



That's the problem.

We know the scientists are liars.

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate



> Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.



You can program a computer to tell you (or congressional check writers) that the core of the earth is actually hell, and that we need to invest trillions of dollars in capping deep sea volcanoes to prevent demons from escaping.

Then you program the computers to "show" underwater machines putting concrete domes over fissures but some demons still escape, so you need more money to catch them and send them into the sun on Chinese rockets.

That is literally how ridiculous the climate change scam has become.


----------



## Crick (Feb 22, 2019)

You start your post with a claim that marks you as a fool among fools.  There are tens of thousands of climate scientists on the planet; from a hundred different nations with a hundred different political positions.  The idea that they are all together in some massive and perfectly executed conspiracy spanning decades now is either complete idiocy or complete insanity.  Take your pick.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> You start your post with a claim that marks you as a fool among fools.  There are tens of thousands of climate scientists on the planet; from a hundred different nations with a hundred different political positions.  The idea that they are all together in some massive and perfectly executed conspiracy spanning decades now is either complete idiocy or complete insanity.  Take your pick.


Blah, blah, blah, nothing you can prove, idiots. You impress no one


----------



## Crick (Feb 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> West Antarctic Ice Sheet - Wikipedia
> Also the source of
> 
> _It is estimated that the volume of the Antarctic ice sheet is about 25.4 million km3 (6.1 million cu mi), and the WAIS contains just under 10% of this, or 2.2 million km3 (530,000 cu mi).[1] The weight of the ice has caused the underlying rock to sink by between 0.5 and 1 kilometre (0.31 and 0.62 miles)[2] in a process known as isostatic depression.
> ...





Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Great source!  Not!  Do you know what "citation needed" means?  It's a BS flag!
> 
> Now, if you would actually read and understand what it says, what are you going to do about it when the impact is nowhere near the gloom and doom projections of nimrods who suck at math?



These were the sources of that information.
*References*

*^* Lythe, Matthew B.; Vaughan, David G. (June 2001). "BEDMAP: A new ice thickness and subglacial topographic model of Antarctica". _Journal of Geophysical Research_. *106*(B6): 11335–11352. Bibcode:2001JGR...10611335L. doi:10.1029/2000JB900449.
*^* Anderson, John B. (1999). _Antarctic marine geology_. Cambridge University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-521-59317-5.
*^* Ice Shelves, Antarctic and Southern Ocean CoalitionArchived February 3, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
And if you think your math skills are superior to a couple of PhDs, I have to wonder what you're doing here pretending to be John Wayne?.

The "citation needed" flag applied only to the prior statement describing the flow of ice over the irregular basin - basic glaciology. There are no other citation-needed flags in the entire article. The article contains 27 footnoted references - I only provided those needed to support the excerpt I posted.  I suggest you read it before again posting here half-cocked.

I'm also curious on what you base your opinion that  an 11 foot increase in sea level (ignoring the effects of other Antarctic melt, of Greenland melt and of glacier and snow melt worldwide) is "...nowhere near the gloom and doom...".  Eleven feet of sea level rise would submerge my house and those of many millions of people worldwide.  You don't think that worth worrying about Admiral?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Feb 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Until that happens, fuck off and die, k?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > West Antarctic Ice Sheet - Wikipedia
> ...



Yes, my math skills are far superior to most PhDs as a matter of fact.

If you are truly worried about an 11 foot rise in the sea level, I have one very good piece of advice for you:  Move!

Since you will never live to see it happen anyway, Ill give you are very good price if it meets my requirements.

Those millions of people will just have to get off their ass and move to higher ground. It isn't going to happen overnight, and I think they will have plenty of time to plan their trip.  If global warming is real, Siberia will actually become a nice place to live, and it is virtually empty now!

Canadians and other who are homesick for their ice and snow most of the year can be used to settle Antarctica.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 23, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> NOTHING associated with "Global Warming" (or whatever the Leftists want to call it this week) will happen so rapidly that we humans will be unable to timely react.  The seas may rise, and some land will be covered with water.  Some of Florida, maybe. Some South Pacific islands.  But New York City and Boston will somehow be protected, as will Venice, Italy, New Orleans, and so on.
> 
> How fucking stupid do you have to be in order to ignore the fact that the Human Race has adapted to a thousand different varieties of "Climate Change" in its history, and still thrived?


Not even that will happen.  The worst estimate of the IPCC is 18 inches of sea level rise in 100 years, but their mid-range estimate is 6 inches in 100 years.  No one would even notice the difference


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> Are you calling me a liar?
> 
> The WAIS disintegration became a foregone conclusion when it was discovered that the base of the sheet was separating from bedrock below; that ocean water had begun to float the ice sheet off its base.  Most of the WAIS bedrock is below sea level due to the weight of the ice sitting on it.  But that disintegration was expected to take many centuries.  Now it seen to be taking place at a much more rapid pace.
> 
> So, your accusation is bullshit.  And the next time you call me a liar, it would be awfully marine-like for you to have some proof.


Of course, all these predictions are going to come true when the people who make them are all long dead.  That's how doomsday hoaxers work.  They have a nice career while they are alive, and who cares what happens after they are dead, eh, Komrade?


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Yes, my math skills are far superior to most PhDs as a matter of fact.



Would you call yourself a stable genius then?

Just for our edification, what is your educational background?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, my math skills are far superior to most PhDs as a matter of fact.
> ...



I have a Master's degree in Education with an undergrad in history and sufficient coursework for a degree in mathematics split between two universities.  I was an electronics technician in the Navy, and computer science major for most of my time in college.  I also served as a propulsion plant engineer in the Navy, so I have all of the training in thermodynamics that would make your head spin off your shoulders.  I was also trained in oceanography, radar, missile systems, and nuclear weapons.  I am the definition of multidisciplinary .


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2019)

And of modesty.

I was a submarine sonar tech in the Navy.  I got a BSc in ocean engineering when I got out.  I've been working at AUTEC for the last 35 years.  I'm curious how you went from ET, an enlisted position, to propulsion plant engineer, a very senior officer's position, without going mustang or warrant or getting accepted into the academy, any of which you surely would have mentioned here.  

I'm sorry, but based on what you've said, your math skills are not superior to most PhDs and you sound quite the fool making the claim.

There is a very real probability that the WAIS will catastrophically disintegrate leading to a rapid and severe rise in sea level that has the potential to take large numbers of lives worldwide.  Your suggestion that they just move is thoughtless and ignorant.  Admiral.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> And of modesty.
> 
> I was a submarine sonar tech in the Navy.  I got a BSc in ocean engineering when I got out.  I've been working at AUTEC for the last 35 years.  I'm curious how you went from ET, an enlisted position, to propulsion plant engineer, a very senior officer's position, without going mustang or warrant or getting accepted into the academy, any of which you surely would have mentioned here.
> 
> ...



How will rising oceans kill people who still have ability to go to higher ground? Care to explain that Chicken Little?

There are lots of things you don't understand.  I was an E-4 when I was selected for ROTC.  My ACT score in math put me in the top 1/10 of 1% of math scores and I was actually accepted into MIT out of high school. You may now kiss my ass!


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2019)

What college were you attending as an E4?  ROTC doesn't take people on active duty.

I'm sorry, but someone as intelligent as you are claiming to be would not be tooting their own horn like this.  I believe you were an E-4 ET in the service and got some college afterwards.  Nothing else.  But it doesn't matter.  If you want to convince me that you're a better mathematician than the PhDs that conduct these studies and write these papers, show us where they erred.

Rising oceans will kill people most frequently in storm surges.  And how easy do you think it is for folks in places like Bangladesh to move lock stock and barrel?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> What college were you attending as an E4?  ROTC doesn't take people on active duty.
> 
> I'm sorry, but someone as intelligent as you are claiming to be would not be tooting their own horn like this.  I believe you were an E-4 ET in the service and got some college afterwards.  Nothing else.  But it doesn't matter.  If you want to convince me that you're a better mathematician than the PhDs that conduct these studies and write these papers, show us where they erred.
> 
> Rising oceans will kill people most frequently in storm surges.  And how easy do you think it is for folks in places like Bangladesh to move lock stock and barrel?



I seem to recall someone else tooting their own horn too.  Good for the goose is good for the gander?

I was a computer science major for most of my time in college.  I was a few credits short of a degree when I was forced by the Navy to change majors.  I was an engineering student, and had the most technical BA in history probably ever produced.  I was also the first midshipman to every qualify submarines.  That should be something you are familiar with.

Storm surges?  Maybe they should move before the storm gets there!

As cruel as it seems, no one will miss a couple million Bangladeshis who are too poor and too dumb to move.  It's like people who get hit by trains.  If you don't want to get hit by a train stay off the damn tracks! It's not like it is going to veer suddenly in your direction!


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2019)

You're making far too many mistakes to be believed anymore.  Midshipman are students at the Naval Academy.  You have not mentioned getting into the Academy.  ROTC is a program in American colleges.  You do not go from active duty enlisted to ROTC.  And I did not toot my horn.  I just gave you my history.  I didn't claim to be better at math than a Phd, 99.9 percentile, accepted to MIT out of high school.  These are all just bullshit lies.

And your opinions on the poor are simply unacceptable.  There is no point in talking with someone as dishonest and as morally deficient as you have shown yourself to be.  Bye.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> You're making far too many mistakes to be believed anymore.  Midshipman are students at the Naval Academy.  You have not mentioned getting into the Academy.  ROTC is a program in American colleges.  You do not go from active duty enlisted to ROTC.  And I did not toot my horn.  I just gave you my history.  I didn't claim to be better at math than a Phd, 99.9 percentile, accepted to MIT out of high school.  These are all just bullshit lies.
> 
> And your opinions on the poor are simply unacceptable.  There is no point in talking with someone as dishonest and as morally deficient as you have shown yourself to be.  Bye.



Midshipmen are in ROTC too, dumbass!

Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps - Midshipmen Summer Cruise Training

Now, kiss my ass, you undereducated swine!

Not that I owe you any explanation, but I was selected for the NROTC program while I was attending ET "A" school at Great Lakes.  I remained on active duty, going TAD to a destroyer tender, and then reported to college in the fall, where I was released from active duty and reenlisted in the USNR.  This was after the NESEP program and before ECP.

That is my history.  Now you can believe it because every word is true, or you can pleasure yourself by shoving it up your ass!

Of course, you won't man up and apologize for your errors, but that is what dumbasses do!


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

Apologize?  Hardly.

Here, from your beloved Fox News, 15 January 2019

Antarctic ice is melting six times faster than it did in the 1980s and could 'destabilize' glaciers

ANCIENT ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET COLLAPSE COULD CAUSE A GLOBAL FLOOD

Since 2009, Antarctica has lost almost 278 billion tons (252 billion metric tons) of ice per year, according to the new study. In the 1980s, it was losing 44 billion tons (40 billion metric tons) a year.

"During the entire period, the mass loss concentrated in areas closest to warm, salty, subsurface, circumpolar deep water (CDW), that is, consistent with enhanced polar westerlies pushing CDW toward Antarctica to melt its floating ice shelves, destabilize the glaciers, and raise sea level," the study's abstract reads.


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

Same Fox article

 The study said the amount of energy that has been put into the Earth's oceans over the past 150 years is the equivalent of an atomic bomb explosion every second for 150 years.

According to the government space agency, melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica has increased the global sea level more than a millimeter per year, which is a third of the overall increase.

The study on which this Fox article is based may be read in its entirety at the website of the Proceeding of the National Academy of Science: Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 1979–2017


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> What?  Me worry?



What exactly about that picture worries you...it is nothing but a topography map...don't tell me you can't read a map either.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Chiara said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Chiara said:
> ...



I didn't ask you if you had ever seen evidence of climate change...we all have seen that.  I asked if you had ever seen a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.  There is a difference.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Chiara said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Chiara said:
> ...




The issue isn't whether the climate changes....there is no doubt that the climate changes...  The issue is whether man is altering the global climate...The issue is whether we should spend trillions of dollars that could be put to use solving actual problems on a non problem like man made climate change.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> Chiara said:
> 
> 
> > No I've never seen any evidence of the climate change.
> ...



And they are nothing more than evidence that the climate changes...we all know that...What they are not, is evidence that mankind is altering the climate..I bet that you believe it is.....this is just another example of how low the bar is for information to fool you.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> They show her the Arctic melting away and the Earth getting warmer and warmer. Are you so stupid you couldn't tell that? No one's that stupid.  You're just trolling.



The arctic ice has been stable for 12 years now...

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt
















And the antarctic is doing OK as well...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> You once again display your ignorance of basic science and the scientific method.




What a laugh....climate pseudoscience has completely ignored the scientific method for decades now...tell me...following the scientific method, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped and work begins on a better hypothesis?  

Under the pseudoscientific method, a hypothesis can have as many predictive failures as it gets, so long as the funding continues..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> You start your post with a claim that marks you as a fool among fools.  There are tens of thousands of climate scientists on the planet; from a hundred different nations with a hundred different political positions.  The idea that they are all together in some massive and perfectly executed conspiracy spanning decades now is either complete idiocy or complete insanity.  Take your pick.



And your entire post is a logical fallacy...there were tens of thousands of scientists on the planet who believe that cholesterol caused heart disease...that stress caused ulcers, that salt caused high blood pressure, that the earth was expanding, that there were canals on mars, that light transmitted through the universe via aether, that phrenology was real, that the universe was static, that there were strong genetic differences between the races, that Neanderthals didn't exist alongside of humans, that earth might be the only place in the solar system where water exists, that complex organisms have more genes than simple organisms like an amoeba, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that black holes can't exist near young stars...and on and on and on...pick a scientific topic and you can bet that at one time, nearly 100% of scientists at some time were wrong on that topic....the fact that scientists "believe" it doesn't make it true.

That is why I keep asking you for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and you keep not being able to produce even one piece of such evidence...if there is no actual evidence, what exactly do you suppose convinced all those scientists that you believe exist and are frightened of the changes we are causing to the global climate?


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

So, you believe we should assume all scientific conclusions are incorrect.  That seems like a logical position... for a complete fucking idiot or a TROLL


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You're making far too many mistakes to be believed anymore.  Midshipman are students at the Naval Academy.  You have not mentioned getting into the Academy.  ROTC is a program in American colleges.  You do not go from active duty enlisted to ROTC.  And I did not toot my horn.  I just gave you my history.  I didn't claim to be better at math than a Phd, 99.9 percentile, accepted to MIT out of high school.  These are all just bullshit lies.
> ...



You will have to excuse crick...he is a congenital liar and believes that since he is, everyone else must be as well...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> So, you believe we should assume all scientific conclusions are incorrect.  That seems like a logical position... for a complete fucking idiot or a TROLL



When they are dealing with an entity as imminently observable, and measurable as the climate, and energy movement though it...and no observed, measured evidence exists to support the accepted AGW hypothesis over natural variability, then yes, anyone with any critical thinking skills whatsoever should be seeing red flags all over the place.  Exactly how does one come to such a solid conclusion regarding an observable, measurable entity, when there is no observed, measured evidence to support the hypothesis over natural variability.  Are they claiming that we are causing the climate to change but it looks just like natural variability?


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

So you accept the admiral's claim to be in the 99.9th percentile in mathematics and the rest of his obvious bullshit braggadocio?  Not surprised in the least.  But he has yet to provide one single meaningful comment regarding the instability of the WAIS.  The one comment he made was a suggestion that the PhDs who'd written on this topic failed to take into account the volume of the sub-sea-level basin under the WAIS and claimed that the ocean filling it would actually cause sea level to drop.  Do you agree with those contentions?


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, you believe we should assume all scientific conclusions are incorrect.  That seems like a logical position... for a complete fucking idiot or a TROLL
> ...



We are all so sick of your lies about the existence of evidence supporting AGW.  Anyone tempted to listen to this man should visit www.ipcc.ch and have a look at "The Physical Science Basis" to see what this... person, claims does not exist.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2019)

I read IPCC as "Bernie  Madoff's Accountants"


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> So you accept the admiral's claim to be in the 99.9th percentile in mathematics and the rest of his obvious bullshit braggadocio?  Not surprised in the least.  But he has yet to provide one single meaningful comment regarding the instability of the WAIS.  The one comment he made was a suggestion that the PhDs who'd written on this topic failed to take into account the volume of the sub-sea-level basin under the WAIS and claimed that the ocean filling it would actually cause sea level to drop.  Do you agree with those contentions?



I don't accept much of what anyone says about themselves on the internet...you claim to be an engineer but anyone who has spoken to you more than a dozen or so times will know that is a lie...an engineer who can't read and understand what a simple graph says...really?

You have not provided a meaningful comment either...you have tried to claim that volcanoes are not melting the ice...you are claiming that ice under pressure brought into contact with lava would not steam and result in run off...you have claimed that CO2 and not undersea volcanic activity is responsible for the warming waters when the fact is that the southern oceans are, and have been cooling for a very long time except in the region of the volcanic activity...you don't display the first hint that you have even the slightest grasp of what the scientific method entails...

In short, you are, in all likelihood a janitor with dreams of grandeur...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



So carry your lying ass over there and copy and paste a SINGLE piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and bring it here already...


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

Shit, if you demanded I kiss my mother I'd tell you to shove it up your ass and fuck off.  You have been buried in evidence of AGW and in every single instance you simply reject it out of hand. And you do so with lies, lies and more lies.

WWW.IPCC.CH, The Physical Science Basis


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> Shit, if you demanded I kiss my mother I'd tell you to shove it up your ass and fuck off.  You have been buried in evidence of AGW and in every single instance you simply reject it out of hand. And you do so with lies, lies and more lies.
> 
> WWW.IPCC.CH, The Physical Science Basis



We both know that there is nothing there that could even be construed to be observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...if there were, you would include it in every post...it would be in your sig line....you would love nothing more than to shove a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability into my face....who do you think you are kidding besides yourself...

If such evidence existed, there would be no place that a skeptic could go to escape it.....

No such evidence exists there or anywhere...and your claims that you just don't want to go get it are just more lies being told by a congenital liar......by your own words......people who just provide a link, and don't bring the evidence here are just talking out of their asses...


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

How many people have no looked at "The Physical Science Basis" Shit?  Everyone who has done so now KNOWS that you are lying through your teeth.  But that doesn't bother you because you are a fucking, good-for-nothing TROLL.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> How many people have no looked at "The Physical Science Basis" Shit?  Everyone who has done so now KNOWS that you are lying through your teeth.  But that doesn't bother you because you are a fucking, good-for-nothing TROLL.



And yet, you can't bring a single piece here with which to humiliate me?  I am laughing in your stupid lying face skidmark.....neither you, nor anyone who ever visited that site can find a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...not one...

I can say that with supreme confidence that no such evidence will ever turn up to embarrass me, because I have spent a great deal of time looking for it over the decades...unlike you, I don't get spoon fed bullshit by political hacks...I actually look for the data...


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

The link humiliates you.  And, as I have stated many times now, I will not be answering your demands because you're a fucking TROLL.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> How many people have no looked at "The Physical Science Basis" Shit?  Everyone who has done so now KNOWS that you are lying through your teeth.  But that doesn't bother you because you are a fucking, good-for-nothing TROLL.


And yet, here you are, and to date have not provided any observations. Sir, that’s you lying on any point afterwards


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> The link humiliates you.  And, as I have stated many times now, I will not be answering your demands because you're a fucking TROLL.


Naw, as I stated before, post the quote from your link that is consistent with your claim. You won’t because you can’t. And why you don’t. Why I laugh daily at you


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> How many people have no looked at "The Physical Science Basis" Shit?  Everyone who has done so now KNOWS that you are lying through your teeth.  But that doesn't bother you because you are a fucking, good-for-nothing TROLL.





jc456 said:


> And yet, here you are, and to date have not provided any observations. Sir, that’s you lying on any point afterwards




I have provided hundreds of observations here.  I have also repeatedly provided the link to 'The Physical Science Basis' and to numerous other published scientific studies containing empirical and other evidence supporting AGW.  YOUR comment is a *lie*.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > How many people have no looked at "The Physical Science Basis" Shit?  Everyone who has done so now KNOWS that you are lying through your teeth.  But that doesn't bother you because you are a fucking, good-for-nothing TROLL.
> ...


No, you provided a link and that means jack shit without the pieces you claim would give ypur claim credence . So far you’re a failure


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Tell you what.  Why don't you do me a big favor and go "The Physical Science Basis" and copy it all to a post here.  

From USMB Site Wide Rules and Regulations

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
I have already been suspended once for posting no more than the Executive Summary to two chapter of The Physical Science Basis (hereafter "TPSB").  I will not do that again.  Additionally, I will not be satisfying ANY demands from SSDD (which you are only repeating because he is your idol and you are a brainless twat) because he is absolutely nothing but a fucking TROLL.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

David Wallace-Wells in interview with Sean Illing
It is absolutely time to panic about climate change

I think one of the great lessons of climate change is that even those of us like me who grew up over the last few decades living in the modern world, in cities, and felt the whole time that we had sort of built our way out of nature. And that while there were things to be concerned about, with regard to climate, and other environmental issues, I still had this deep belief that we had built a fortress around ourselves that would protect us against a hostile world.

I felt that even if climate change unfolded quite rapidly, those impacts would be felt far away from where I lived, and the way I lived.

I think, especially with the extreme weather that we’re seeing over the last couple of years, we’re all beginning to relearn the fact that we live within nature, and in fact all of our lives are governed by its forces. None of us, no matter where we live, will be able to escape the consequences of this.

There are still people who focus on sea level rise and imagine that they’ll be fine so long as they don’t live on the coastline. But this is pure fantasy. No one will avoid the ravages of warming, and the reality of this will be impossible to ignore in the coming decades.

Now, there are countries in the world that are going to, at least in the short term, benefit slightly from global warming. Especially in the global north. Russia, Canada, and parts of Scandinavia are likely to see a little bit of benefit from warming, because a slightly warmer climate means greater economic productivity and higher agricultural yields.

But where we’re headed, we’re likely to even pass those optimal levels for those countries. And even in the short term, the balance of benefits and costs is so dramatically out of whack that the overwhelming majority of the world will be suffering hugely from the impacts of climate change. Even if there are a few places that benefit.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I don't want my children or theirs going through this.  Apparently, some of you aren't so concerned.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> David Wallace-Wells in interview with Sean Illing
> It is absolutely time to panic about climate change
> 
> I think one of the great lessons of climate change is that even those of us like me who grew up over the last few decades living in the modern world, in cities, and felt the whole time that we had sort of built our way out of nature. And that while there were things to be concerned about, with regard to climate, and other environmental issues, I still had this deep belief that we had built a fortress around ourselves that would protect us against a hostile world.
> ...


And still no observed empirical evidence


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

Liar


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> The link humiliates you.  And, as I have stated many times now, I will not be answering your demands because you're a fucking TROLL.



And yet you can't seem to bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability to smack me down...you would rather be known as a liar and an idiot than bring a single piece of such data here to shut me up.....

riiiiigggggghhhhhhttttt.  You are full of it skidmark...if any such data existed over there in your steaming pile of excrement, you would bring it here...but you don't...you are left impotently trying to pretend that you "just don't want to bring it here"  Do you think that plan is fooling anyone but you?  You know what they say..you can only think up a deception that is good enough to fool yourself....and we have established that that bar is pretty damned low.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > How many people have no looked at "The Physical Science Basis" Shit?  Everyone who has done so now KNOWS that you are lying through your teeth.  But that doesn't bother you because you are a fucking, good-for-nothing TROLL.
> ...



You have provided plenty of observations...but none of them favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you just aren't bright enough to understand what constitutes evidence that favors AGW over natural variability...you seem to think that any observed measurement is evidence supporting AGW...it isn't...every time you bring something, it only further proves how easily you are fooled.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You won't....because you can't...because no such data exists....you are a liar....and you debate like a whiney little girl.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> I don't want my children or theirs going through this.  Apparently, some of you aren't so concerned.



He "feels"  he "thinks"  and like you...he doesn't have the first piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....his bar is as low as yours...and like you, he never wonders why he can't seem to find any of that observed, measured data to shut up the skeptics...


----------



## Pilot1 (Feb 24, 2019)

The world is going to freeze over.  Ahhhh!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> Liar


Fact


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> Same Fox article
> 
> The study said the amount of energy that has been put into the Earth's oceans over the past 150 years is the equivalent of an atomic bomb explosion every second for 150 years.
> 
> ...



Do you have any idea how small a fucking millimeter is?

There are 25.4 mm in an inch.  That will take 25.4 years to raise the sea level by an inch!  Oh, the humanity!  That's 300 years to raise it a foot, yet you say it will happen overnight!

People might have to start wearing platform shoes!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> So you accept the admiral's claim to be in the 99.9th percentile in mathematics and the rest of his obvious bullshit braggadocio?  Not surprised in the least.  But he has yet to provide one single meaningful comment regarding the instability of the WAIS.  The one comment he made was a suggestion that the PhDs who'd written on this topic failed to take into account the volume of the sub-sea-level basin under the WAIS *and claimed that the ocean filling it would actually cause sea level to drop.*  Do you agree with those contentions?




I never said that you lying sack of shit!  I would ask you to quote it but you can't!  Admit you lied and slither off.  

Apparently, the best part of you ran down your mother's leg!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You should be suspended for the inability to carry on a conversation because you are a dumbass!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So you accept the admiral's claim to be in the 99.9th percentile in mathematics and the rest of his obvious bullshit braggadocio?  Not surprised in the least.  But he has yet to provide one single meaningful comment regarding the instability of the WAIS.  The one comment he made was a suggestion that the PhDs who'd written on this topic failed to take into account the volume of the sub-sea-level basin under the WAIS *and claimed that the ocean filling it would actually cause sea level to drop.*  Do you agree with those contentions?
> ...


It’s what he does over and over


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> Same Fox article
> 
> The study said the amount of energy that has been put into the Earth's oceans over the past 150 years is the equivalent of an atomic bomb explosion every second for 150 years.



Wow....an atomic bomb explosion every second for 150 years?  Sounds scary but is it?  Or is it just more alarmist handwaving hysterics.  Lets look at the numbers...

The global surface area is 5.11e+14 square meters
400,000 atomic bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square meter
Should we be afraid of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square meter in a system where the incoming radiation from the sun is half a kilowatt per square meter?  We can't even measure the radiation to that sort of accuracy...An amount of energy so small, that it isn't even with the bounds of measurement certainty...The error bar for such a claim is plus or minus 113 atomic bombs every second...

Now if you want to see something scary...The earths circular area is 3 * (6E6m)^2 = 1E14m2
The sun's TSI is 1kW=1E3 J/s so the earth gets CA 1E17 J/s on the sunlit side so the sun is bombarding us with about a thousand atomic bombs worth of energy every second. 

You people are nothing but alarmists...you try to scare people at every turn...idiot temperature charts shown in terms of anomalies rather than temperature because anomalies look more frightening...trying to scare people with images of an atomic bomb per second when the sun is delivering 1000 times that amount of energy...it is all bullshit designed to fool uneducated people into supporting your scam.


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2019)

First,we have no idea what size atomic bomb he's talking about, and you don't either.

Second, Mr Math Whiz, there are 86,400 seconds in a day, not 400,000

The energy was spread over the oceans, not the "global surface area".

The full sun, directly and indirectly, provides 1,120 W/m^2 at the Earth's equatorial surface.

The problem here has always been with you.  On numerous topics, you have attempted to use scale to convince people different effects are of no threat.  You ignore numerous realities to do so. The temperature increase of the planet has actually only been 1.5K / 288K or 0.52%.  Why would we be worried about an increase of a fraction of a percent change over decades?

Because it represent a real threat.

Why do you make arguments like this?

*BECAUSE YOU'RE A TROLL*


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> First,we have no idea what size atomic bomb he's talking about, and you don't either.



He got the idea from hansen who used hiroshima bombs....it wouldn't matter as the sun puts them all to shame in terms of energy every f'ing second.

You are a lying alarmist piece of drek....and you have sunk so low that you are reduced to calling names in big, red, bold, all caps...could you admit your defeat any more clearly?


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2019)

The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima released 63 TJ of energy.  The Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki released 84 TJ of energy.  Let's call it 73.5 TJ/bomb.

The ocean absorbs roughly 90% of the suns energy, directly and via greenhouse feedback.  The greenhouse effect, as of 2011, put 1.68 Wm^-2 to the Earth's surface.  The ocean would receive 90% of that, so just over 1.5 Wm^-2.  The world's ocean total 3.610443426e+14 m^2 in area.  They thus receive 545,899,046,011,200 watts every second which, of course, equals 545.899 TJ.  545.899 TJ / 73.5 TJ =  7.43 'atom bombs' per second.  That comes out 7.43 times as high as the original post because I have only calculated the current rate.  The original statement included the past 150 years of lesser heating.

How many of SSDD's fans reading this thread think that a continuous and increasing heating rate currently equivalent to seven-and-a-half atomic bombs PER SECOND agree with him that this is nothing to worry about?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima released 63 TJ of energy.  The Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki released 84 TJ of energy.  Let's call it 73.5 TJ/bomb.
> 
> The ocean absorbs roughly 90% of the suns energy, directly and via greenhouse feedback.  The greenhouse effect, as of 2011, put 1.68 Wm^-2 to the Earth's surface.  The ocean would receive 90% of that, so just over 1.5 Wm^-2.  The world's ocean total 3.610443426e+14 m^2 in area.  They thus receive 545,899,046,011,200 watts every second which, of course, equals 545.899 TJ.  545.899 TJ / 73.5 TJ =  7.43 'atom bombs' per second.  That comes out 7.43 times as high as the original post because I have only calculated the current rate.  The original statement included the past 150 years of lesser heating.
> 
> How many of SSDD's fans reading this thread think that a continuous and increasing heating rate currently equivalent to seven-and-a-half atomic bombs PER SECOND agree with him that this is nothing to worry about?


now we're talking atomic bombs to scare the populace?  LOL.  dude you are truly a whackamole.  you keep getting your ass whacked and keep doubling down on your stupid.  SSDD gave you stats and yet here you are trying to make it even worse.  what a humanitarian you are.  Hey fellow man look at this shit that's gonna happen to you via the posting of crickster!!


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

The atomic bomb analogy originated with an article on Fox News whizzo.  The original article claimed the heating rate over the past 150 years was equivalent to 1 bomb per second.  SSDD argued that it was a trivial amount of heating.  I countered.

And if a heating rate of 546 TJ/second doesn't scare you, stay away from buses and cliff edges.


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Are you incapable of debating these points or do you choose to avoid it out of laziness or do you simply not care?


Could you at least try to provide an argument that is not squarely based on logical fallacies to support your position ?


----------



## mamooth (Feb 27, 2019)

Another big calving event on an Antarctic ocean ice shelf.

Iceberg twice the size of New York City is set to break away from Antarctica

Yes, ocean ice shelves have a cycle of expanding and calving. Thing is, the new frontier will be 20 km further back from that of the previous calving event. Each cycle sees the ice going further back.

And yes, that will affect sea level, even though it's floating ice. When freshwater ice floating on denser salt water melts, the volume of meltwater is about 1% more than the displacement. It's a small effect on sea level, but it is there.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Sorry, but that is incorrect.  The ice sheet there is thousands of feet thick.



it is a speck compared to the volume of the ocean....like your 4 atomic bombs worth of energy every second in comparison to the suns 1000 atomic bombs worth of energy every second....pure alarmism...nothing more.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> The ocean absorbs roughly 90% of the suns energy, directly and via greenhouse feedback.



The oceans don't absorb anything via greenhouse feedback...except, of course in rare temperature versions where the atmosphere is warmer than the ocean.  Energy only moves in one direction...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are you incapable of debating these points or do you choose to avoid it out of laziness or do you simply not care?
> ...



Its all he has so it is all he can argue with.


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

Which of my arguments concerning the possible disintegration of the WAIS do you believe to be based logical fallacies?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Which of my arguments concerning the possible disintegration of the WAIS do you believe to be based logical fallacies?




Everything you say skidmark...everything you say...


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

So, you cannot identify any of my arguments as being based on logical fallacies. 

Lying troll.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> So, you cannot identify any of my arguments as being based on logical fallacies.
> 
> Lying troll.




I only had to scroll up as far as the last argument you made...syllogistic fallacy....reference to a vague idea which is then used to draw a conclusion about a thing that is more specific...

One could also make the argument that your whole "atomic bomb" line of reasoning is a quantification fallacy, where the quantifiers used in the argument are not in agreement with the conclusion's quantifiers...

That was easy.  And I bet you really believe that you don't eat, sleep and breathe logical fallacy...the entire pseudoscientific body of present day climate science literally swims in logical fallacies..

The most common is fallacy of cause...also called "biblical logic"  where one confuses correlation for causation...in fact, it forms the basis of climate science....

Then there is the ever present slippery slope..we must fix it now or we are doomed...then when it become clear that we didn't fix it and nothing happened, climate pseudoscience greases up a whole new slippery slope..and it goes on and on and on...


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

I see you rattling off logic terms you don't understand.  I do not see any quotes from my posts.  Try again TROLL


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> I see you rattling off logic terms you don't understand.  I do not see any quotes from my posts.  Try again TROLL




What I see is that it didn't take but just a second to find that your arguments tend to be logical fallacies...and the post that I am answering now is also a logical fallacy...need I tell you which one? 

You have become laughable skidmark...look at what I have reduced you to...


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

If it only took a second, how hard would it have been to have cut and paste one here so that we could all see what you're talking about?  Not very hard.  Since you haven't, the only conclusion everyone here can come to is that you could not find an argument of mine with the logical flaws you claim are present in every one.  That would make you a LIAR and a TROLL


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> If it only took a second, how hard would it have been to have cut and paste one here so that we could all see what you're talking about?  Not very hard.  Since you haven't, the only conclusion everyone here can come to is that you could not find an argument of mine with the logical flaws you claim are present in every one.  That would make you a LIAR and a TROLL



Post 276 for anyone who is interested in actually examining your fallacious thinking...as if anyone who has ever bothered to read your posts would be surprised to learn that logical fallacy is your first language...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Post 276 for anyone who is interested in actually examining your fallacious thinking...as if anyone who has ever bothered to read your posts would be surprised to learn that logical fallacy is your first language..


Fallacy is certainly is your way of thinking. 

You said if man-made work went into a process it can't be spontaneous. 
You said the emission of energy previously absorbed is not spontaneous.

That means absolutely nothing is spontaneous, unless you can think of a process that emits energy that it has not previously absorbed.

That means two way radiation is never spontaneous and can happen between bodies at any temperatures.

Yet you also say that it is forbidden by the second law. Now that is really self-contradictory. That is a logical fallacy of the worst kind.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 28, 2019)

mamooth said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Allah won't let that happen. If it does, plenty of Muslim nations they can move to...…..


----------



## fncceo (Feb 28, 2019)

mamooth said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



In fact, there is a West Bengal state in India, whose inhabitants and language are referred to as Bengalis.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 28, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> All we know for certain is that our CO2 caused the 3 undersea volcanoes and the only fix is to surrender our freedom and property to a One World government



Windmills combat volcanoes......it's a fact!


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

And they remove CO2 from the deep ocean.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Post 276 for anyone who is interested in actually examining your fallacious thinking...as if anyone who has ever bothered to read your posts would be surprised to learn that logical fallacy is your first language..
> ...



I don't make up the definitions...I simply read them and without interpretation, accept them unless they are proven wrong...


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > If it only took a second, how hard would it have been to have cut and paste one here so that we could all see what you're talking about?  Not very hard.  Since you haven't, the only conclusion everyone here can come to is that you could not find an argument of mine with the logical flaws you claim are present in every one.  That would make you a LIAR and a TROLL
> ...



Here is post #276.  Identify the logical fallacy.

_The atomic bomb analogy originated with an article on Fox News whizzo. The original article claimed the heating rate over the past 150 years was equivalent to 1 bomb per second. SSDD argued that it was a trivial amount of heating. I countered.
And if a heating rate of 546 TJ/second doesn't scare you, stay away from buses and cliff edges._


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I don't make up the definitions...I simply read them and without interpretation, accept them unless they are proven wrong...


Nope. You interpret them to the point that your definitions do not make sense. 

Your interpretation means there is no such thing as a spontaneous process. Please do a bit more reading of physics books. 

Your self contradictory interpretations are the worst logical fallacy you could possibly make.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




.syllogistic fallacy....reference to a vague idea which is then used to draw a conclusion about a thing that is more specific...

One could also make the argument that your whole "atomic bomb" line of reasoning is a quantification fallacy, where the quantifiers used in the argument are not in agreement with the conclusion's quantifiers...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I don't make up the definitions...I simply read them and without interpretation, accept them unless they are proven wrong...
> ...



Again...I don't interpret anything...that is your method of operation...I simply take the definitions as they are written...they mean what they mean...the fact that they demonstrate your thinking is wrong is your problem...not mine.  I don't need to interpret them...I tend to agree with them.


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2019)

Of course you interpret.  Your claim is completely specious.  That would be intentional because

*YOU ARE A TROLL edited, don't use red*


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> Of course you interpret.  Your claim is completely specious.  That would be intentional because
> 
> *YOU ARE A TROLL*



Poor skidmark.....reduced to nothing more than bitter name calling...you brought this on yourself...incessantly making claims that you can't support...and no...I don't interpret....that is what you guys do when you don't like what the statement of the physical law, or the definition says....stupid...but it is what you do and if it is all you have, then what are you going to do?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Again...I don't interpret anything...that is your method of operation...I simply take the definitions as they are written...they mean what they mean...the fact that they demonstrate your thinking is wrong is your problem...not mine. I don't need to interpret them...I tend to agree with them.



You are not correct. 
Here is the physics definition of spontaneous emission:
Spontaneous emission - Wikipedia

_Spontaneous emission is the process in which a quantum mechanical system (such as an atom, molecule or subatomic particle) transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state (e.g., its ground state) and emits a quantised amount of energy in the form of a photon._

_Sometimes molecules have a metastable level and continue to fluoresce long after the exciting radiation is turned off; this is called phosphorescence. Figurines that glow in the dark are phosphorescent. _​
If you don't abide by the physics definition of spontaneous then you have a fallacious interpretation of the physics. 

You can see a cold phosphorescent figurine with your warmer eyes. That is an example of energy spontaneously emitted from a cold object to a warmer object.  However the 2nd law involving entropy still holds. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> [
> _Spontaneous emission is the process in which a quantum mechanical system (such as an atom, molecule or subatomic particle) transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state (e.g., its ground state) and emits a quantised amount of energy in the form of a photon._​


_

You never vail to amuse.....your definition is for spontaneous emission, not a spontaneous process...it is spontaneous processes that we are talking about...A spontaneous emission of a photon says noting about energy transfer from warm to cool or cool to warm....and doesn't describe under what conditions a spontaneous emission may occur.  All of the examples you came up with...mushrooms, light sticks...LED's, bioluminescence, etc etc ad nausueum were topics covered under the umbrella of spontaneous/non spontaneous processes...not emissions...little wonder you don't have a clue..you don't even know what we were talking about...you just go out and grab the first thing that looks like it agrees with you and don't bother to even see if it is what we were talking about...

I am quite sure this has been covered before but apparently it didn't sink in...I won't cover it with you again..._
​


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I am quite sure this has been covered before but apparently it didn't sink in...I won't cover it with you again...



You still don't understand the physics definition of spontaneous. Phosphorescence falls under the physics definition of spontaneous emission. Atoms can radiate light spontaneously after the excitation energy has completely stopped.

Light sticks spontaneously (physics definition) emit radiation after chemical energy has been created and stored.

The emitted light can come from a colder object to a hotter object.

I don't blame you for not wanting to cover it again because you are trying to twist the physics definition of spontaneous and fail. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2019)

You have my pity wuwei....to be so uninformed in the information age....to need to interpret every single thing that comes along in order to try and make it agree with you....to not know the difference between spontaneous emission and spontaneous process...to be a dupe....


----------



## Crick (Mar 3, 2019)

*To so OBVIOUSLY be a fucking TROLL edited, don't use red
*
The WAIS has already begun to disintegrate.  The retreat of the grounding line and the depressed isostatic basin means its disintegration is unavoidable.  The only question is how quickly.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> *To so OBVIOUSLY be a fucking TROLL
> *
> The WAIS has already begun to disintegrate.  The retreat of the grounding line and the depressed isostatic basin means its disintegration is unavoidable.  The only question is how quickly.


Dude way to lose control. It’s a fking message board . Wow


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> *To so OBVIOUSLY be a fucking TROLL
> *
> The WAIS has already begun to disintegrate.  The retreat of the grounding line and the depressed isostatic basin means its disintegration is unavoidable.  The only question is how quickly.



I feel sorry for you Abraham. You obviously ferverently believe these predictions of doom.

I think you need to take a chill pill and try to put things into perspective.

Is the WAIS on a course to destruction? Maybe. When did it start down this possible pathway? 10000 years ago when the last ice age ended. Did the WAIS collapse during ant of the other interglacials? I bet that it was headed for disaster then just like it is now. But ice ages kept coming to the rescue.

If we had today's technology 5000 years ago the same conditions would have been present, and depending on the attitude of the time, the same exaggerated forecasts of doom could have been made.

I think you should actually use some scientific estimates to check the cause and effects of all the things being blamed on CAGW. It doesn't add up.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You have my pity wuwei....to be so uninformed in the information age....to need to interpret every single thing that comes along in order to try and make it agree with you....to not know the difference between spontaneous emission and spontaneous process...to be a dupe....



It seems when you are cornered you always resort to obnoxious blather. 
We are talking about spontaneous emission of a phosphorescent material. 

You can see a cold phosphorescent object with your warmer eyes. That is an example of energy spontaneously emitted from a cold object to a warmer object. However the 2nd law involving entropy still holds.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> *To so OBVIOUSLY be a fucking TROLL
> *
> The WAIS has already begun to disintegrate.  The retreat of the grounding line and the depressed isostatic basin means its disintegration is unavoidable.  The only question is how quickly.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You have my pity wuwei....to be so uninformed in the information age....to need to interpret every single thing that comes along in order to try and make it agree with you....to not know the difference between spontaneous emission and spontaneous process...to be a dupe....
> ...



Cornered?  What a laugh.....go learn the difference between spontaneous emission and a spontaneous process...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cornered? What a laugh.....go learn the difference between spontaneous emission and a spontaneous process...


That is a non-sequitur. Spontaneous process is a more general term. Spontaneous emission of radiation is a specific example.

Phosphorescence is an example of energy spontaneously emitted from a cold object to a warmer object. However the 2nd law involving entropy still holds as it should in all spontaneous processes.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2019)

Not going over this material again...look up the word tedious...you already lost this discussion twice...if you must relive your  failure to support your claim... it is all there in  the history...


----------



## Crick (Mar 4, 2019)

He hasn't lost shit.  You've never won an argument on any facet of science with anyone.  Your interpretations regarding the SLoT violate the conservation of energy and special relativity.  Your ideas regarding infrared and CO2 are demonstrably false and outright idiotic.  Your contention that water has no gaseous phase is a stupid as stupid can get.  On spontaneous emission you have contradicted yourself repeatedly.

The reason this is the case is that you intentionally push shit you know to be false just so you can laugh at the fools that waste their time arguing with you and the even bigger fools who believe you actually know what you're talking about.  That behavior is what makes you a

*FUCKING TROLL*


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Not going over this material again...look up the word tedious...you already lost this discussion twice...if you must relive your failure to support your claim... it is all there in the history...



Yes, I realize why physics is tedious for you. You don't believe physics. So you make up your own definition of spontaneous and result in a miserable failure. Your theory leads to the erroneous conclusion that nothing on earth is spontaneous, because it was man made or because there was prior work done. You probably don't know that everything that gives off energy of any sort has had a prior input of energy at some point. 

So back-radiation of GHGs is allowed to happen because, as you said the sun does prior work. And so, in your world, objects can radiate to hotter objects because nothing is a spontaneous process. Of course that is already in the physics books, but not for the asinine reasons you believe.

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> He hasn't lost shit.  You've never won an argument on any facet of science with anyone.  Your interpretations regarding the SLoT violate the conservation of energy and special relativity.  Your ideas regarding infrared and CO2 are demonstrably false and outright idiotic.  Your contention that water has no gaseous phase is a stupid as stupid can get.  On spontaneous emission you have contradicted yourself repeatedly.
> 
> The reason this is the case is that you intentionally push shit you know to be false just so you can laugh at the fools that waste their time arguing with you and the even bigger fools who believe you actually know what you're talking about.  That behavior is what makes you a
> 
> *FUCKING TROLL*



And yet, you can't seem to mange to find the first piece of observed, measured evidence which demonstrates that I am wrong...how sad for you skidmark...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not going over this material again...look up the word tedious...you already lost this discussion twice...if you must relive your failure to support your claim... it is all there in the history...
> ...




No...phyisics is fun...you are tedious...again..refer to every other time you lost this discussion...I won't be revisiting it again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There goes Brave Sir Robin.....all by himself.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 5, 2019)

All you climate crusader dummies who keep talking perpetually about the science and how your side is right? Where has it gotten you?

How many decades is it going to take that lobbing these hysterical bombs is ghey........has zero effect on the public because the bombs have gotten st00pider and st00pider. Time to pivot to Plan B s0ns because your side is getting its clock cleaned with this hysterical stuff.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> He hasn't lost shit.  You've never won an argument on any facet of science with anyone.  Your interpretations regarding the SLoT violate the conservation of energy and special relativity.  Your ideas regarding infrared and CO2 are demonstrably false and outright idiotic.  Your contention that water has no gaseous phase is a stupid as stupid can get.  On spontaneous emission you have contradicted yourself repeatedly.
> 
> The reason this is the case is that you intentionally push shit you know to be false just so you can laugh at the fools that waste their time arguing with you and the even bigger fools who believe you actually know what you're talking about.  That behavior is what makes you a
> 
> *FUCKING TROLL*


champ, you've been the chump.  just saying,  still no observable measured evidence.  still waiting.  seems you are the one trolling.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not going over this material again...look up the word tedious...you already lost this discussion twice...if you must relive your failure to support your claim... it is all there in the history...
> ...


back radiation.  hahahahahahaa


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > He hasn't lost shit.  You've never won an argument on any facet of science with anyone.  Your interpretations regarding the SLoT violate the conservation of energy and special relativity.  Your ideas regarding infrared and CO2 are demonstrably false and outright idiotic.  Your contention that water has no gaseous phase is a stupid as stupid can get.  On spontaneous emission you have contradicted yourself repeatedly.
> ...



Of course he is the troll...it's their standard MO...blame the opposition of precisely what they are doing...and he still doesn't have the first shred of observed, measured evidence to support his claims...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2019)

hey yo you all,  where is the data with how warm 280 ppm of CO2 is and how much warmer 400ppm is.  Is it warmer than the surface?   is 280ppm the same temperature as 400ppm.  if you think 400ppm is warmer why?


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




If you were NOT trolling, YOU would be providing links to supporting SCIENCE.  You do not because none exists.  You do nothing here but troll, troll, troll.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And by science do you mean scientific method and research or consensus


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2019)

I mean studies published in refereed journals


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> No...phyisics is fun...you are tedious...again..refer to every other time you lost this discussion...I won't be revisiting it again.


Yes. Run and hide.The physics world thanks you for running off.  You have self-contradicted yourself by defining the phrase spontaneous emission to the extent that no EM emissions are ever spontaneous. That means radiation can go from cold to hot objects since they are not spontaneous - "prior work was done."

Try to bring up your false interpretation again and we will have to revisit the consequences of your self-contradiction. You have to realize that when you try to reinvent physics you will be caught up in lies and self contradictions.

.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


If you weren’t trolling, you’d forward the quotes from your links. Go


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You are the one claiming that there exists observed, measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you are the one claiming that published paper(s) exist in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...if such data or papers exist, by all means, lets see it.

You want links to the sites that don't have any such data or papers...no problem here is the list:

ALL OF THEM...Check every site on the internet and then go to every scientific society's library, then visit every other data source on earth and you won't find any such data or papers...they don't exist...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No...phyisics is fun...you are tedious...again..refer to every other time you lost this discussion...I won't be revisiting it again.
> ...



Revisit all the past times you lost this discussion...the only thing I am avoiding is more tedium from you...it is all there, repeated ad nauseam...feel free to review your failure to make your case as much as you like...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Revisit all the past times you lost this discussion...the only thing I am avoiding is more tedium from you...it is all there, repeated ad nauseam...feel free to review your failure to make your case as much as you like...


Sorry you are nauseated by accepted basic science. 

You essentially believe that no system is spontaneous and often quote the second law as, 
_ It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish thi_s flow.* Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. *​
The second sentence would be of no practical importance to you since you don't believe any system involves spontaneity anyway. You might as well strike it out.  The first sentence says it all. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Sorry you are nauseated by accepted basic science.



Not at all...just bored to tears by your need to revisit every discussion you lost over and over and over...


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2019)

You have been so thoroughly and totally PWNED as to set yourself up as a pradigm of PWNAGE.

*TROLL*


----------



## jc456 (Mar 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> You have been so thoroughly and totally PWNED as to set yourself up as a pradigm of PWNAGE.
> 
> *TROLL*


still no observed evidence eh?  seems you are the troll.  see a troll is someone who posts nothing.  and it seems that someone is you! projecting is a fine art and you got it down.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry you are nauseated by accepted basic science.
> ...


You painted yourself into a corner. Lost over and over? I just cite the proven laws of science. Your invented fake science cannot exist without a serious self-contradiction. When you think of physics as fairy dust, and invent your own laws without understanding the science and the history of experiments you will lose every time. 

.


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> You have been so thoroughly and totally PWNED as to set yourself up as a pradigm of PWNAGE.
> 
> *TROLL*





jc456 said:


> still no observed evidence eh?  seems you are the troll.  see a troll is someone who posts nothing.  and it seems that someone is you! projecting is a fine art and you got it down.



No, that is not what a troll does.  Look it up.  Or simply watch SSDD.

I wanted to note  That all those volcanoes recently discovered will do nothing but make it more likely that the WAIS will more quickly disintegrate catastrophically.  Whether we're looking at a 7-10 foot rise in sea level from global warming, volcanism or a combination of the two isn't going to make much difference to the MILLIONS of people who will lose their homes and workplaces.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Revisit all your prior losses on this topic...not interested in going over tilled ground again...your tedium knows no bounds...


----------



## Crick (Mar 6, 2019)

Where would those be?  He has kicked your ass across town on EVERY single issue on which you've tried to take him on.  Pa-thetic.  

*TROLL*


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Revisit all your prior losses on this topic...not interested in going over tilled ground again...your tedium knows no bounds...


I didn't invent anything. Everything I posted is in university physics textbooks. I didn't lose anything. What you think is that the roughly 400,000 current physicists in the world lost. Lost what? Tedium is the only argument you have left.

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> Where would those be?  He has kicked your ass across town on EVERY single issue on which you've tried to take him on.  Pa-thetic.
> 
> *TROLL*



Laughing in your stupid face skidmark....what's the matter...wuwei need his hand held?  Need a bit of support?  It is all back there, by all means, you two daisies just tiptoe through the past and soak it up....


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Revisit all your prior losses on this topic...not interested in going over tilled ground again...your tedium knows no bounds...
> ...



Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...


Everything I post is from university textbooks. You are still saying the textbooks and roughly 400,000 physicists are wrong and you are right. Tell that to Dr. Raeder again. It's no wonder it is tedious for you to sort it out. Your understanding of science is replete with self-contradictions. 

.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...
> ...


400,000 physicists?  really?  is that total?  so you're saying every physicist in the world all say the same thing?  that seems impractical.   Especially since they all most likely don't work on the same things.  so your statement at face value is fking wrong!!! but hey, thanks for playing.

See punks like you throw shit around like this all the time.  no way to take your input seriously.  just saying.  barf o meter says barf!!!!!


----------



## Crick (Mar 7, 2019)

Your comment, jc, is like saying not all mathematicians would be familiar with the addition of integers.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2019)

I throw you a bone and you can't even bite on it.  you are a loser.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...
> ...



Most of what you post is some interpretation from somewhere...but even if it were a direct quote doesn't mean that it is correct...do you have any idea how many ideas from textbooks have been superseded over the years?  And the number of physicists, or any other scientists who believe a thing is completely irrelevant...especially regarding consensus science on relatively new scientific ideas as history tells us, most will turn out to be wrong....


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



They exaggerate wildly...all the scientists this...all the scientists that...when among real science, there is rarely an across the board agreement on anything...only in climate pseudoscience do you find any sort of real consensus and that is brought about by politics and money...

Hell, there is still a raging debate over what causes gravity among those interested in the topic...but in climate science, all march in lock step if they want continued political support and with it continued funding...Only those not dependent upon government largess, and that is precious few can speak out against the "consensus"...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Revisit all the past times you lost this discussion...the only thing I am avoiding is more tedium from you...it is all there, repeated ad nauseam...feel free to review your failure to make your case as much as you like...
> ...



So it's your contention that throwing open the front door on a sub zero day will cause the 72 F interior to absorb heat from the brutally colder outside?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I know.  It's why I posed the question.  because I don't know too many that agree on everything.  there may be things they can agree on with some liberal adjustments, but for the most part, like me and you, they have their beliefs each of them. That dude has me on ignore, so he won't ever respond.  But crick jumped right in.  He didn't even understand the question I posed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*do you have any idea how many ideas from textbooks have been superseded over the years? *

Funny that you don't have any excerpts from any of those textbooks from decades ago, or from today, that back up your "photons only flow one way" or even better, your "matter at equilibrium stops emitting completely" blather.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?
Like a force field?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I seriously doubt any textbook would print:

Black body radiation fails near a warmer object.
The second term in the SB equation is always less than the first
No emission is spontaneous due to prior work
Man-made objects can't undergo spontaneous emission
The CMB does not reach the earth surface. Only resonant frequencies do.
All photons from a black body have the same wavelength.
etc.

.​


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> They exaggerate wildly...all the scientists this...all the scientists that...when among real science, there is rarely an across the board agreement on anything.



There is across the board agreement on basic science such as quantum electrodynamics, thermodynamics, atomic physics, electromagnetic theory, etc. That is what I am talking about. You disagree with many of those basic concepts. 

Disagreements can come with dark matter, super-symmetry, string theory and many other fields that are not involved in the basic concepts underlying atmospheric physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Nope. Why would I believe that when I agree with the statement,
_It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish thi_s flow.​
That sentence states you could do it with work, such as with a heat pump. But of course neither the 2nd law nor anybody is saying you could simply do it through an open door.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> There is across the board agreement on basic science such as quantum electrodynamics, thermodynamics, atomic physics, electromagnetic theory, etc. That is what I am talking about. You disagree with many of those basic concepts.



Sorry guy but there isn't...there isn't even across the board agreement over what QM means...just more of your interpretation....so tedious...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy but there isn't...there isn't even across the board agreement over what QM means...just more of your interpretation....so tedious..



Every modern textbook has essentially the same math for quantum mechanics. You can't use QM philosophy to calculate black body radiation, or the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, etc.

But getting back to the previous digression from Antarctic ice, you believe in the fallacies,

Black body radiation fails near a warmer object.
The second term in the SB equation is always less than the first
No emission is spontaneous due to prior work
Man-made objects can't undergo spontaneous emission
The CMB does not reach the earth surface. Only resonant frequencies do.
All photons from a black body have the same wavelength.
IR absorption of CO2 does not cause the atmosphere to heat. 
etc.​Those beliefs in fallacies invalidates practically everything you say about atmospheric science.

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> You are incorrect.  An examination of the literature will bear him out and show you to, once again, either have not the faintest idea what you're talking about or simply be lying in an attempt to entertain yourself with people's reactions to your outrageousness...
> 
> _TROLL_




You are so easily fooled...it is sad...and funny.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy but there isn't...there isn't even across the board agreement over what QM means...just more of your interpretation....so tedious..
> ...



So what?  Every "modern" textbook of the time taught all of the failed science of the day...you talk about textbooks as if they were handed down from divine beings...they are nothing more than what we know today...tomorrow, we know more and the textbooks of today become obsolete...your worship of science is sad....and why you are so willing to be fooled by it...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



The colder air heats the hotter house, I see. 

The same way part of a bowling ball ignores its rules and floats up into space when you release it down the lane


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*The colder air heats the hotter house, I see. *

One thing at a time.

Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So what? Every "modern" textbook of the time taught all of the failed science of the day...you talk about textbooks as if they were handed down from divine beings...they are nothing more than what we know today...tomorrow, we know more and the textbooks of today become obsolete...your worship of science is sad....and why you are so willing to be fooled by it...



You used that argument many times. It means nothing as far as changing calculations involved in real world problems, such as thermodynamics, atomic physics, radiation, etc.

The basic physics theories of today are completely accurate enough to underlie physics involved in describing everything that has to do with sciences on earth. No future theory will change these descriptions at this basic level of science. 

Correspondence principle | physics
_*Correspondence principle*, philosophical guideline for the selection of new theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all the phenomena for which a preceding theory was valid. _​You would know that if you took a beginning course in quantum mechanics. 

I hope you are not trying to say that future textbooks will 
change the definitions of spontaneity to preclude prior work,
say black body radiation fails near warmer objects,
say the CMB does not reach the earth surface,​and many more, because those factors are in the my post that prompted your textbook obsolescence response.

Please think about the correspondence principle before you think future posts about textbook or science obsolescence is a credible retort. 


.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So what? Every "modern" textbook of the time taught all of the failed science of the day...you talk about textbooks as if they were handed down from divine beings...they are nothing more than what we know today...tomorrow, we know more and the textbooks of today become obsolete...your worship of science is sad....and why you are so willing to be fooled by it...
> ...



So you are back to pushing unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over reality...been there won that discussion...so tedious....so so so tedious...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're saying that there are times when the house temperature INCREASES after exposure to the cold?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



First things first.

Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So you are back to pushing unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over reality...been there won that discussion...so tedious....so so so tedious...


It's really a shame that you think physics is so tedious. All the models of atomic physics, electrodynamics, and thermodynamics have been observed, measured, and tested countless times and expressed in mathematical form, ie models. But you are caught up in your dull vision that physics is wrong and you are right. So you have no more ability to respond to real physics and regress to tedium. So sad.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2019)

Oh the tedium of you going on about unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...on and on and on ad nauseam...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


he answered you.  why are you ignoring him?  radiation implies heat correct?  so you're saying the colder air heats your house.  amazing.  wish it would mine.


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Oh the tedium of you going on about unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...on and on and on ad nauseam...



Oh, the tedium of trying to do anything with a troll.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*he answered you.  *

Where? Which post #?

*radiation implies heat correct? *

No. Radiation is photons, or waves if you're old school.

* so you're saying the colder air heats your house.*

Nope. Never said that. Not once.

Maybe you can help Frank by answering?

Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


does your house get warmed from the cool atmosphere?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How warm is my house, how cool is the atmosphere at the beginning of your "experiment"?


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?



Well, there are your walls...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?
> ...



Frank's original question...…..

_So it's your contention that throwing open the front door on a sub zero day will cause the 72 F interior to absorb heat from the brutally colder outside? _

West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Could Disintegrate Within Decades


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Does it matter?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Of course it matters.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Then your question is answered


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Then your question is answered*

How warm is my house, how cool is the atmosphere at the beginning of your "experiment"?

Who answered the above question?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


This was your post; 

*Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?
Like a force field?
*
So if you need to know specific temperatures, then your question was answered.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Well, based on Frank's "data", the interior of the house radiates out a lot more than the cold air is radiating in.

So of course the house cools.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And he answered the question!


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Oh the tedium of you going on about unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...on and on and on ad nauseam...





SSDD said:


> Oh the tedium of you going on about unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...on and on and on ad nauseam...



If you are so bored with your fake physics, why do you come to this board. Maybe you need a new hobby. How about learning polkas on an accordion. Maybe stamp collecting. You might have fun with coloring books. Join the flat earth society. They need people like you. Science certainly isn't your thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No he didn't.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well sure he did! And, you confirmed it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Well sure he did! *

What post #?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?
> ...



The bitter cold outside air heats the warmer house.

Wow

Why do people waste so much money on boilers and artifical heating systems when the bitter cold air will do all the work for them???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 8, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*The bitter cold outside air heats the warmer house.*

Why do you feel that?
Did SSDD come up with another stupid "theory"?


----------



## Crick (Mar 8, 2019)

Frank, you've heard this before.  This is a very, very, very basic bit of thermodynamics.  ALL matter radiates ALL the time in ALL directions.  As its temperature changes, the frequency range and intensity of its radiation changes, but even at one centigrade degree above absolute zero, matter radiates.  SSDD's contention that matter does not radiate towards warmer matter, 16 ways from Sunday, is nonsense .

The inside of your house may be a snug 78F, but when you open that door, radiation from all the matter outside will come in the house.  It will add a relatively small amount of heat to the interior.  Unfortunately, the interior of the house is simultaneously exposed to the cold outside and its radiation (at higher frequencies and at greater intensity) will leave the house through the open door.  Before you opened that door, that same radiation would have hit the inside of the door and remained in the house.  The door, presumably at a temperature close to 78F, is also radiating back into the house.  Now, with the door open, the radiation from the interior is escaping and instead of that relatively warm door radiating back into the room, we have the sub-freezing exterior sending it meager radiation in.  The net result, ignoring any air movement through the door, is that the room will cool.  It is pouring its own heat outside through the open door and receiving a much lesser amount coming in from the cold surfaces in the front yard.

Got it?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 9, 2019)

Well said. A number of people have paid too much attention to what SSDD has said. Their focus is on the cold object radiation when it should be on the hotter object's radiation. 

It's as if you bought a sandwich for $3 and gave the vendor a $5 bill. The vendor would give you the sandwich and $2 in change.

Some of SSDD's followers would exclaim, "Hey, he not only gave you a sandwich but he gave you $2 to boot! How stupid is that!" They completely ignore the fact that you gave the vendor $5 in the first place. 

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> Frank, you've heard this before.  This is a very, very, very basic bit of thermodynamics.  ALL matter radiates ALL the time in ALL directions.  As its temperature changes, the frequency range and intensity of its radiation changes, but even at one centigrade degree above absolute zero, matter radiates.  SSDD's contention that matter does not radiate towards warmer matter, 16 ways from Sunday, is nonsense .
> 
> The inside of your house may be a snug 78F, but when you open that door, radiation from all the matter outside will come in the house.  It will add a relatively small amount of heat to the interior.  Unfortunately, the interior of the house is simultaneously exposed to the cold outside and its radiation (at higher frequencies and at greater intensity) will leave the house through the open door.  Before you opened that door, that same radiation would have hit the inside of the door and remained in the house.  The door, presumably at a temperature close to 78F, is also radiating back into the house.  Now, with the door open, the radiation from the interior is escaping and instead of that relatively warm door radiating back into the room, we have the sub-freezing exterior sending it meager radiation in.  The net result, ignoring any air movement through the door, is that the room will cool.  It is pouring its own heat outside through the open door and receiving a much lesser amount coming in from the cold surfaces in the front yard.
> 
> Got it?


No.

You're saying that opening the door to cold outside air will somehow add heat to the house and it sounds anti-science, like most of the balling ball will fall to the alley but some of it will float off into space. 

Bizarre


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 27, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> No.
> 
> You're saying that opening the door to cold outside air will somehow add heat to the house and it sounds anti-science, like most of the balling ball will fall to the alley but some of it will float off into space.
> 
> Bizarre



Please, stop defending SSDD's idiocy.


----------



## westwall (Feb 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Please, stop defending SSDD's idiocy.





Yes, it is silly, but it does lead to some discussions that are at least amusing in a fun alternate reality sort of way, rather than the falsification of data and violation of the scientific method types we usually get.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Please, stop defending SSDD's idiocy.


It's idiocy to say that some portion of the cold radiates toward the warmer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 27, 2022)

When you inflate a tire does some portion of the loeer pressure air inside the tire force its way into the air hose?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 27, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yes, it is silly, but it does lead to some discussions that are at least amusing in a fun alternate reality sort of way, rather than the falsification of data and violation of the scientific method types we usually get.



His comprehensive idiocy does force you to do some research. 
Can you simply an issue enough that even a cretin like him can comprehend and admit his error?
Apparently not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 27, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's idiocy to say that some portion of the cold radiates toward the warmer.



When you use a phrase like "cold radiates", it makes you sound like you're related to poor SSDD.
Cold doesn't radiate, matter radiates. In every direction, all the time.
Without measuring the temperature of surrounding matter first.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 27, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> When you inflate a tire does some portion of the loeer pressure air inside the tire force its way into the air hose?



Why would you conflate air pressure with radiation?


----------



## miketx (Feb 28, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> When you inflate a tire does some portion of the loeer pressure air inside the tire force its way into the air hose?


How is that possible since most tires are at lower pressure than the air in the hose? If it weren't you could not inflate the tire.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2022)

miketx said:


> How is that possible since most tires are at lower pressure than the air in the hose? If it weren't you could not inflate the tire.



Same way the temperature outside is lower than the temperature inside the heated house, so when you throw open the door, how can the cold warm the house?  Same concept.  You throw a bowling ball down the lane, does some portion continue to float off into space while the rest heads down the lane? 

It's a one way street


----------



## miketx (Feb 28, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Same way the temperature outside is lower than the temperature inside the heated house, so when you throw open the door, how can the cold warm the house?  Same concept.  You throw a bowling ball down the lane, does some portion continue to float off into space while the rest heads down the lane?
> 
> It's a one way street


I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 28, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> when you throw open the door, how can the cold warm the house?



Who said it did? The key word is "net".


----------



## ding (Feb 28, 2022)

net


----------



## ding (Feb 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would you conflate air pressure with radiation?


You mean like conflating low productivity jobs with low paying jobs?

I agree.  Why would anyone do that?


----------

