WSJ: Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting at Furious Rate, New Study Shows

[Markle]

 

[abu afak]

Completely OFF TOPIC to his thread.
Someone just started another where is on topic tho, correctly blaming China or larger emissions.

And of course you are ACKNOWLEDING AGW.

`

 

[ding]

I don't know if there's been exact lab work done on 280-400.
And we can't recreate the planet.
It's kind of a demand detail fallacy question
The kind of heel-nipping trolling/demand detail Fallacy you specialize in.

Some sciences like astronomy and climate cannot be 'labbed'.
However we have the extensive history/correlation of temperature v CO2 for millions of years.
However I just did explain lab work that has been done.
because we can't recreate the universe doesn't mean astronomy is invalid.
We base it on observation, and with climate, yes, some labs.

I've been wrestling with putting you on ignore because you are 90% a troll/last-wording harassment such as this.

There hasn't been any lab work for quantifying associated temperature of CO2 at any concentrations.

Seems like something that should be done, don't you think?

 

[abu afak]

There hasn't been any lab work for quantifying associated temperature of CO2 at any concentrations.

Seems like something that should be done, don't you think?

LOL

https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+and+temperature+labratory+results&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS794US794&oq=co2+and+temperature+labratory+results&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.10779j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

`

 

[themirrorthief]

While everyone is focusing on Antarctica and Greenland, S Asia could lose much of it's Ag due to AGW.

""Glaciers across the Himalayas are melting at an extraordinary rate, with new research showing that the vast ice sheets there shrank 10 times faster in the past 40 years than during the previous seven centuries.

Avalanches, flooding and other effects of the accelerating loss of ice imperil residents in India, Nepal and Bhutan and threaten to disrupt agriculture for hundreds of millions of people across South Asia, according to the researchers. And since water from melting glaciers contributes to sea-level rise, glacial ice loss in the Himalayas also adds to the threat of inundation and related problems faced by coastal communities around the world.

“This part of the world is changing faster than perhaps anybody realized,” said Jonathan Carrivick, a University of Leeds glaciologist and the co-author of a paper detailing the research published Monday in the journal Scientific Reports. “It’s not just that the Himalayas are changing really fast, it’s that they’re changing ever faster.”
[.....]
The new finding comes as there is scientific consensus that ice loss from glaciers and polar ice sheets results from rising global temperatures caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels."..."
[.....]
[.....]

Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting at Furious Rate, New Study Shows

Glaciers across the region are melting at an extraordinary rate, with new research showing that the vast ice sheets there shrank 10 times faster in the past 40 years than during the previous seven centuries.

www.wsj.com

to bad no one has proven global warming is man made not one scientist ever

 

[ding]

LOL

https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+and+temperature+labratory+results&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS794US794&oq=co2+and+temperature+labratory+results&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.10779j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

`

So why hasn't there been one paper published on it?

 

[ding]

LOL

https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+and+temperature+labratory+results&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS794US794&oq=co2+and+temperature+labratory+results&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.10779j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

`

Doesn't it bother you that there has never been any tests performed to quantify the associated temperature of CO2 at different concentrations?

 

[Markle]

Completely OFF TOPIC to his thread.
Someone just started another where is on topic tho, correctly blaming China or larger emissions.

And of course you are ACKNOWLEDING AGW.

`

In your fantasies.

 

[abu afak]

Doesn't it bother you that there has never been any tests performed to quantify the associated temperature of CO2 at different concentrations?

LOL
(and thanks for another bump for my headline)

https://www.google.com/search?q=co2...9i57j69i64.10779j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

`

 

[ding]

LOL
(and thanks for another bump for my headline)

https://www.google.com/search?q=co2...9i57j69i64.10779j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

`

That isn't an experiment, dude.

Why do you think they haven't performed one?

 

[abu afak]

That isn't an experiment, dude.

Why do you think they haven't performed one?

I already linked to several so you're Lying again.

It's also the usual Disingenuous premise error on your dishonest part.
Like asking for lab work on Astronomy.
One can't recreate the earth and determine how much the temp will go up for every PPM of CO2 and when.
(the whole dishonest/fallacious game of you and crusader rabbit)

What we can say is GHGs ARE GHGs and temp, Of Course, goes up because of it, and more because of more of it.
Scientists have shown radiation that would normally reflect back into space is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs, and the blanket thickens every year and we get warmer because of it.
But no, due to the vagueries of yearly weather and sun activity we can't say it will happen every year, just that it will be increasingly warmer than it would have been without the GHG build up.

`

 

[ding]

I already linked to several so you're Lying again.

It's also the usual Disingenuous premise error on your dishonest part.
Like asking for lab work on Astronomy.
One can't recreate the earth and determine how much the temp will go up for every PPM of CO2 and when.
(the whole dishonest/fallacious game of you and crusader rabbit)

What we can say is GHGs ARE GHGs and temp, Of Course, goes up because of it, and more because of more of it.
Scientists have shown radiation that would normally reflect back into space is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs, and the blanket thickens every year and we get warmer because of it.
But no, due to the vagueries of yearly weather and sun activity we can't say it will happen every year, just that it will be increasingly warmer than it would have been without the GHG build up.

`

What was the measured associated temperature for CO2 then?

 

[abu afak]

What was the measured associated temperature for CO2 then?

I finished you off now BOY.
As I said one can't predict an exact number for temp every year based on the CO2 PPM every year.
There are vagueries in a huge dynamic system (such as solar minimums)
Just that, AGAIN, it will be increasingly warmer than it would have been due to the increasingly thick GHG blanket.

Gameover on your fallacious demand detail Fallacy.
I won't indulge it any more, just use/abuse for my next point in promoting this thread.

You try and play stumper because you have zero knowledge of the topic.
But you have been answered/porked several times on the same Troll.
You lost
and will not be indulged further in your empty last-wording.
bye
`

 

[ding]

I finished you off now BOY.
As I said one can't predict an exact number for temp every year based on the CO2 PPM every year.
There are vagueries in a huge dynamic system (such as solar minimums)
Just that, AGAIN, it will be increasingly warmer than it would have been due top the increasingly thick GHG blanket.

Gameover on your fallacious demand detail Fallacy.
I won't indulge it any more, just use/abuse for my next point in promoting this thread.

You try and play stumper because you have zero knowledge of the topic.
But you have been answered/porked several times on the same Troll.
You lost
and will not be indulged further in your empty last-wording.
bye
`

What is the measured temperature increase (as measured in a lab) due to CO2 increasing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm?

No one knows. It's never been tried before.

 

[abu afak]

What is the measured temperature increase (as measured in a lab) due to CO2 increasing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm?

No one knows. It's never been tried before.

Lower than it would be at 450 or 500 PPM.
LOL.
Gameover pt 6278.

`

 

[ding]

Lower than it would be at 450 or 500 PPM.
LOL.
Gameover pt 6278.

`

There's no quantifiable empirical evidence. None. Nada. Zip.

 

[Old Rocks]

There hasn't been any lab work for quantifying associated temperature of CO2 at any concentrations.

Seems like something that should be done, don't you think?

Such a dumb fuck you remain;

 

[Old Rocks]

What is the measured temperature increase (as measured in a lab) due to CO2 increasing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm?

No one knows. It's never been tried before.

Silly ass, we were at that level in the Pliocene.

The Pliocene: The Last Time Earth had >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2

The Pliocene: >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2

www.rmets.org

 

[cnm]

So, since CO2 is such a powerful heat generator, why is there never any lab work showing how much temperature increases when CO2 increases from 280 to 400PPM?

Show us the lab work that informs black hole calculations.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show us the lab work that informs black hole calculations.

Irrelevant, as usual.