Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Old Rocks]

Which, of course, is being constantly denied here by the 'Conservatives'.

 

[Trakar]

Which, of course, is being constantly denied here by the 'Conservatives'.

The quotation marks are well placed.

 

[wirebender]

That's your delusion and you're holding on to it like grim death but it is based only on you closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" whenever someone shows you the evidence. No one can do much for someone as willfully and ideologically self-blinded as you are.

Actually, it is based on your side's inability to produce any actual evidence demonstrating the existence of a greenhouse effect in the open atmosphere. The stark, unavoidable fact is that during daylight hours, our atmosphere is what keeps the Earth from burning like the moon. The atmosphere serves to scatter incoming energy from the moon and keep the earth considerably cooler than it would otherwise be.

 

[Old Rocks]

Our side, consisting of all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities.

Your side? Energy companies and assorted fruitcakes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Which, of course, is being constantly denied here by the 'Conservatives'.

The quotation marks are well placed.

I have many conservative freinds just as worried about the changes we are seeing as I am. The 'Conservative' of today is a totally differant animal than the conservative of yesterday.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers cannot replicate their "theory" in a laboratory setting.

The "science" behind AGW is somewhere between Cold Fusion and Phrenology.

 

[konradv]

The fact that we can directly detect and measure the absorption and emission spectra of specific gas components of the atmosphere and confirm these in direct measurement of the atmosphere is a pretty compelling piece of empirical evidence.

It is a compelling bit of evidence that certain molecules absorb and emit Ir but it doesn't even begin to support the hypothesis of backradiation or the greenhouse hypothesis in any way.

In confirmation of these direct measurements, we can also directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy the surface of the earth emits (roughly 6.2 x 10^24 J) and we can directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy that leaves the top of the atmosphere (roughly 3.8 x 10^24 J) and demonstrate the ~2.4 x 10^24 J that creates our ambient or "atmospheric greenhouse" warmth.

That does not constitute evidence of the greenhouse effect.

There is much more, but these are direct measurements that really don't involve any complicated maths are relatively straight-forward, simple to understand and casually (in the modern era) demonstrable.

Actually, there is no more. Because you have remained civil, I am going to try one more time with you to demonstrate your error in the simplest terms I can manage. If you don't mind, I would like to do this step by step and have a bit of conversation between rounds to be sure that we are in agreement before proceeding or hash out any disagreement.

An object can become warm via the absorption of electromagnetic radiation. I believe we are both in agreement with that basic fact. Where we split though is at the idea that an object being passively warmed can warm its source of heat. I say that it can't and will try once more to convince you of this fact.

First, if an object that is being passively warmed could warm its source of heat, energy could be multiplied simply by placing objects that radiate IR in proximity to each other and let them mutually radiate IR and collect the excess. This is impossible, however, because the mutually exchanged IR cancels, it does not multiply as suggested by the greenhouse hypothesis.

Let me make a quick illustration and ask a question or two and I will stop for the evening and await your response.

Before I begin, pardon the graphics. If I were a graphic designer, I wouldn't be doing the work that I presently do.

To make this simple, lets let object "A" represent a warmer object radiating its energy to an infinite heat sink "C" maintaining a temperature of absolute zero. Now we will add object "B" into the picture. It is within object A's field of radiation so it will be warmed.

I am guessing that we are in agreement to what happens when object "B" is introduced into the picture.

At some point, the temperature of object B will come to equilibrium and at that point, object "B" will begin to radiate heat. At this point, object "A" is subject to more radiation than it was before object "B" reached such a temperature as necessary for it to begin radiating energy which was prior to the introduction of object "B" zero.

We still together?

Now, if the idea of backradiation is true, cooler object "B" will be able to warm warmer object "A". Object "A" will become warmer, for free, due to the mere presence of object "B". Objects "A" and "B" together will be able to radiate more energy into the pictured universe "C" simply by introducing object "B" into the radiation field of object "A".

Is that your contention? Are you saying that more energy enters into universe "C" simply by putting object "B" into the picture even though object "B" has no source of energy other than object "A".

NO, you seem to be misunderstanding the whole concept of AGW. Please stick to the actual facts, because this analogy makes no sense and has no relation to AGW theory. You've introduced a model with no connection to anything I or anyone else I know would say. GHGs work like a blanket. There's no talk of the kind of scenario you're presenting. Please try again with a more "real world" scenario.

 

[wirebender]

Bentwire, that is about a big a load of drivel as I have ever read. All of that BS to avoid the fact that GHGs absorb IR and re-emit it. The energy that would other wise go out into space is absorbed and re-emited, capturing about 50% of the energy that would otherwise be gone.

Tyndall demostrated this 150 years ago.

Actually rocks, he hypothesized it 150 years ago. In all that 150 years though, no experiment has demonstrated any such thing in an open atmosphere.

This is incorrect, Tyndall and later Arrhenius both confirmed in open air and laboratory experiments and precisely quantified and qualified the various GHG gases and their absorption characteristics and their impacts upon (then) current climate conditions.
These experiments and measurements have been run repeatedly throughout the last century and a half or so, and are being run currently in many high schools and universites around the world.

Sorry, but they haven't. There have been some nice sideshow huxter type demonstrations, but the greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere has never been demonstrated.

 

[konradv]

Actually rocks, he hypothesized it 150 years ago. In all that 150 years though, no experiment has demonstrated any such thing in an open atmosphere.

This is incorrect, Tyndall and later Arrhenius both confirmed in open air and laboratory experiments and precisely quantified and qualified the various GHG gases and their absorption characteristics and their impacts upon (then) current climate conditions.
These experiments and measurements have been run repeatedly throughout the last century and a half or so, and are being run currently in many high schools and universites around the world.

Sorry, but they haven't. There have been some nice sideshow huxter type demonstrations, but the greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere has never been demonstrated.

Why wouldn't an experimental demonstration translate to the atmosphere? You keep making pronouncements, but provide no evidence to back up your contentions. If there was something wrong with them, tell us. Don't expect us to take everything you say as gospel. Despite what some may say, this ISN'T a religion.

 

[RollingThunder]

This is incorrect, Tyndall and later Arrhenius both confirmed in open air and laboratory experiments and precisely quantified and qualified the various GHG gases and their absorption characteristics and their impacts upon (then) current climate conditions.
These experiments and measurements have been run repeatedly throughout the last century and a half or so, and are being run currently in many high schools and universites around the world.

Sorry, but they haven't. There have been some nice sideshow huxter type demonstrations, but the greenhouse effect in an open atmosphere has never been demonstrated.

Why wouldn't an experimental demonstration translate to the atmosphere? You keep making pronouncements, but provide no evidence to back up your contentions. If there was something wrong with them, tell us. Don't expect us to take everything you say as gospel. Despite what some may say, this ISN'T a religion.

But it is a religion for the denier cultists. That's why this point about the greenhouse effect is a dogma for wiredbent and others and why no amount of evidence or scientific testimony will ever be adequate to change their minds. They are a cult like the flat-earthers, so it isn't a rational or evidence based position, it's a belief system based mostly on political ideology and ignorance of science.

 

[lehr]

PASADENA, Calif. – Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record.

The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic’s ice cover.

Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA’s Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean’s ice cover.

Ron Kwok of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and intense cold ensues. In the summer, wind and ocean currents cause some of the ice naturally to flow out of the Arctic, while much of it melts in place. But not all of the Arctic ice melts each summer; the thicker, older ice is more likely to survive. Seasonal sea ice usually reaches about 2 meters (6 feet) in thickness, while multi-year ice averages 3 meters (9 feet).

Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older “multi-year” ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent.

Arctic ice thinned dramatically between 2004 and 2008 | VANCOUVERITE

18 mar. 09 - three morons ski to the n. pole to prove ice is melting - they reported that they were stuck in a storm and may die - airplanes were unable to reach them - the camara man had frost bite - 18 mar. 09 alberta canada weather station reported that that year was the coldest in 100 yrs.

 

[lehr]

green is a hoax

 

[RWatt]

To make this simple, lets let object "A" represent a warmer object radiating its energy to an infinite heat sink "C" maintaining a temperature of absolute zero. Now we will add object "B" into the picture. It is within object A's field of radiation so it will be warmed.

I am guessing that we are in agreement to what happens when object "B" is introduced into the picture.

At some point, the temperature of object B will come to equilibrium and at that point, object "B" will begin to radiate heat. At this point, object "A" is subject to more radiation than it was before object "B" reached such a temperature as necessary for it to begin radiating energy which was prior to the introduction of object "B" zero.

We still together?

Now, if the idea of backradiation is true, cooler object "B" will be able to warm warmer object "A". Object "A" will become warmer, for free, due to the mere presence of object "B". Objects "A" and "B" together will be able to radiate more energy into the pictured universe "C" simply by introducing object "B" into the radiation field of object "A".

Is that your contention? Are you saying that more energy enters into universe "C" simply by putting object "B" into the picture even though object "B" has no source of energy other than object "A".

That's definitely my contention.

Think of B like a mirror. It's "bouncing" some of the energy from object A into universe C.

So C is being fed both directly by A and also indirectly by A via B. Ie more energy from A is reaching universe C because of the presence of object B.

An important thing to realize is that only a small faction of energy from A reaches C. That's because A casts energy in all directions and most of those directions go nowhere. So we aren't creating energy from nothing by adding B, we are taking some of the bulk of energy that is otherwise lost, capturing it with B and passing some of that to C.

 

[Trakar]

Which, of course, is being constantly denied here by the 'Conservatives'.

The quotation marks are well placed.

I have many conservative freinds just as worried about the changes we are seeing as I am. The 'Conservative' of today is a totally differant animal than the conservative of yesterday.

Don't feel bad, so are most of the "Progressives."

Teddy Roosevelt was one of the last true and strong progressives in this nation (though even he did a little backpedal to big oil), too bad there aren't any like him today. You tell people you are a progressive republican today and you can almost literally watch them go into mental conniptions. Technically, I'm an independent as of the early 90s, but my roots and most of my considerations are still oriented to their Bull Moose originations.

 

[RollingThunder]

18 mar. 09 - three morons ski to the n. pole to prove ice is melting - they reported that they were stuck in a storm and may die - airplanes were unable to reach them - the camara man had frost bite - 18 mar. 09 alberta canada weather station reported that that year was the coldest in 100 yrs.

green is a hoax

Actually, the 'hoax' is your assumption that you know anything about this issue or that you have anything meaningful to say. Your anecdotes and slogans are just more denier cult drivel and nonsense.

 

[Trakar]

That's your delusion and you're holding on to it like grim death but it is based only on you closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" whenever someone shows you the evidence. No one can do much for someone as willfully and ideologically self-blinded as you are.

Actually, it is based on your side's inability to produce any actual evidence demonstrating the existence of a greenhouse effect in the open atmosphere. The stark, unavoidable fact is that during daylight hours, our atmosphere is what keeps the Earth from burning like the moon. The atmosphere serves to scatter incoming energy from the moon and keep the earth considerably cooler than it would otherwise be.

Surely you jest!?

 

[Trakar]

Our side, consisting of all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities.

Your side? Energy companies and assorted fruitcakes.

Energy companies rely heavily upon the same mainstream science understandings everyone else does, they may fund the "fruitcakes" in order to pad their bottom line for the time being, but they no more accept or believe the nonsense some put forward than any other reasonable, intelligent and educated person does.

 

[Trakar]

18 mar. 09 - three morons ski to the n. pole to prove ice is melting - they reported that they were stuck in a storm and may die - airplanes were unable to reach them - the camara man had frost bite - 18 mar. 09 alberta canada weather station reported that that year was the coldest in 100 yrs.

Please provide link, citation or verifiable reference that confirms these assertions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Our side, consisting of all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities.

Your side? Energy companies and assorted fruitcakes.

Energy companies rely heavily upon the same mainstream science understandings everyone else does, they may fund the "fruitcakes" in order to pad their bottom line for the time being, but they no more accept or believe the nonsense some put forward than any other reasonable, intelligent and educated person does.

The energy companies rely heavily on real science and put much money into it. Often even when the scientist is telling them that their actions are not in the best interest of mankind. For they know that scientist has only one vote, and they can hire the fruitcakes to convince people like we have on this board to believe the sun rises in the West.

 

[Chris]

The Warmers cannot replicate their "theory" in a laboratory setting.

The "science" behind AGW is somewhere between Cold Fusion and Phrenology.

A young student proving global warming in a labortory setting...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4]YouTube - ‪Global Warming in a Jar‬‏[/ame]