• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Just another small indicator

Threegoofs said:
As I said... it’s an unbelievably stupid opinion.

I know how grants are awarded because I’m not only received them, but I’ve sat on a committee that awards them.

Grants are given to the best projects- ones that will advance knowledge the best. If AGW was wrong, or a minimal issue, loads of grant monies would be available to disprove it or demonstrate its minor nature, so more monies will be available to study other, critical things.
Click to expand...

‘Best projects’ is subjective. So is the opinion of what ‘will advance knowledge the best’. Personal biases will play heavily on those opinions.
 
Threegoofs said:
On Alaska, they’ve had a game called the Nenana Ice Classic, where they set up a tripod on a frozen river and people gamble on the date the ice melts and tips the tripod over. Been going on almost a century.

The winning date is clearly trending.... this year was the all tone record for early breakup.

32544cfac5de034aca737031d03f40a0.jpg
Click to expand...

So what?

As long as Asia and other northern areas emit lots of aerosols, this is to be expected.
 
KLATTU said:
"This is really scarey! From now on I'm taking the bus and cutting back on AC this winter" -no boojey phoney liberal.
Click to expand...

I wonder why they don't understand how powerful aerosols are.
 
Threegoofs said:
Because they cause warming?
Click to expand...

No.

I'm sorry that you forget the argument, repeatedly. Do you have any ability to learn?

Aerosols have an overall cooling effect as they block the sun, when they are in the atmosphere.

On ice and snow, they are a very, very significant variable that melts ice faster than any change of greenhouse gasses or the minor temperature changes we see. They do this by changing the albedo.

It's so simple. Why do you continue to deny the science?
 
Lord of Planar said:
No.

I'm sorry that you forget the argument, repeatedly. Do you have any ability to learn?

Aerosols have an overall cooling effect as they block the sun, when they are in the atmosphere.

On ice and snow, they are a very, very significant variable that melts ice faster than any change of greenhouse gasses or the minor temperature changes we see. They do this by changing the albedo.

It's so simple. Why do you continue to deny the science?
Click to expand...

You should talk to your denier friend, Longview.

He says it’s the warming.

But it’s cute you think that soot from China would have a substantial effect upon the breakup of river ice... especially since the trend has been steady since the Cultural Revolution.

Deniers will grasp at whatever they can, I suppose.
 
Threegoofs said:
You should talk to your denier friend, Longview.

He says it’s the warming.

But it’s cute you think that soot from China would have a substantial effect upon the breakup of river ice... especially since the trend has been steady since the Cultural Revolution.

Deniers will grasp at whatever they can, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Warming is a factor. Just not as much as aerosols.
 
Threegoofs said:
You know this because of your extensive research experience in the field?
Click to expand...

I understand these sciences.

The aerosols make the norther ice melt more rapidly. It retreats farther in the northern summer. Now, the sunshine on a more exposed arctic ocean warms the waters more than normal.

Warming of the water makes the ice melt more too, but the increased ocean exposure increase starts with the aerosols.

CO2 has an insignificant role here. Air temperature has an insignificant role here. It all starts because of aerosols.

I'm a root cause type person.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I understand these sciences.

The aerosols make the norther ice melt more rapidly. It retreats farther in the northern summer. Now, the sunshine on a more exposed arctic ocean warms the waters more than normal.

Warming of the water makes the ice melt more too, but the increased ocean exposure increase starts with the aerosols.

CO2 has an insignificant role here. Air temperature has an insignificant role here. It all starts because of aerosols.

I'm a root cause type person.
Click to expand...

So you know this because ‘you know the sciences’, and somehow you think that the people who also seem to ‘know the sciences’ (as evidenced by their long careers and PhD work, as well as obtaining actual data) are misinformed.

Classic DK.

YouTube
 
Threegoofs said:
So you know this because ‘you know the sciences’, and somehow you think that the people who also seem to ‘know the sciences’ (as evidenced by their long careers and PhD work, as well as obtaining actual data) are misinformed.

Classic DK.

YouTube
Click to expand...

Believe as you wish.

Tell me. In the arctic, does it make sense that ice melts because the temperature changes from -20 C to -18 C?

I understand the albedo changes of ice. I understand the albedo differences between ice and water.

Do you?

I understand the various spectral energy reacts differently on different surfaces.

Do you?
 
Lord of Planar said:
No.

I'm sorry that you forget the argument, repeatedly. Do you have any ability to learn?

Aerosols have an overall cooling effect as they block the sun, when they are in the atmosphere.

On ice and snow, they are a very, very significant variable that melts ice faster than any change of greenhouse gasses or the minor temperature changes we see. They do this by changing the albedo.

It's so simple. Why do you continue to deny the science?
Tell me. In the arctic, does it make sense that ice melts because the temperature changes from -20 C to -18 C?

I understand the albedo changes of ice. I understand the albedo differences between ice and water.

Do you?

I understand the various spectral energy reacts differently on different surfaces.

Do you?
Click to expand...

So you really think the ice at the poles is that dirty? Have you ever seen how long it takes for all that dirty ice in New York city to melt after a heavy snow? Have you measured the albedo of polar ice? How did you do it? Did you know that albedo includes all frequencies, and doesn't care for a particular frequency at all?

You have already openly denied the first law of thermodynamics. Are you going to openly deny Planck's laws too?
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
So you know this because ‘you know the sciences’, and somehow you think that the people who also seem to ‘know the sciences’ (as evidenced by their long careers and PhD work, as well as obtaining actual data) are misinformed.

Classic DK.

YouTube
Click to expand...

I have shown LOP a peer-reviewed study that refutes his beliefs... but he insists on ignoring it.
 
Tans said:
So you really think the ice at the poles is that dirty? Have you ever seen how long it takes for all that dirty ice in New York city to melt after a heavy snow? Have you measured the albedo of polar ice? How did you do it? Did you know that albedo includes all frequencies, and doesn't care for a particular frequency at all?

You have already openly denied the first law of thermodynamics. Are you going to openly deny Planck's laws too?
Click to expand...

Well, you are going to go down that road of claiming I don't understand those simple sciences...

I understand them. No laws are violated. Aerosols on ice are documented.

Goodbye Into the Night.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I understand these sciences.

The aerosols make the norther ice melt more rapidly. It retreats farther in the northern summer. Now, the sunshine on a more exposed arctic ocean warms the waters more than normal.

Warming of the water makes the ice melt more too, but the increased ocean exposure increase starts with the aerosols.

CO2 has an insignificant role here. Air temperature has an insignificant role here. It all starts because of aerosols.

I'm a root cause type person.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand these 'sciences' because it isn't science. You're just calling it science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, you are going to go down that road of claiming I don't understand those simple sciences...

I understand them. No laws are violated. Aerosols on ice are documented.

Goodbye Into the Night.
Click to expand...

No, you have openly denied the first law of thermodynamics. You seem to be intent on denying Planck's laws as well. You keep mentioning this Into the Night. I have seen none of his posts here. Are you confused with a user on another forum?
 
Tans said:
Where's all that extra energy coming from? Why do you keep denying dU=Q-W?
Click to expand...

There is no extra energy. I'm sorry you don't comprehend that the energy is absorbed rather than reflected. Aerosols change the albedo, hence, change the absorption.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
On Alaska, they’ve had a game called the Nenana Ice Classic, where they set up a tripod on a frozen river and people gamble on the date the ice melts and tips the tripod over. Been going on almost a century.

The winning date is clearly trending.... this year was the all tone record for early breakup.

32544cfac5de034aca737031d03f40a0.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm happy., I took the under.

hat that chard shows is there's no pattern year to year. '19 was warm. '16 roughly the same amount cold.
 
[h=2]Earliest recorded snow event in Western Australian history[/h]
[h=3]Remember when climate modelers told us fossil fuels cause longer snow seasons?[/h]No neither do I.
Albany, snowboarding, earliest snow, WA, 2019.
​
It is the earliest recorded snow eventin a calendar year in the state’s history. Statistically, we can tell how anomalous this is by the behaviour of the local wildlife – seen snowboarding in shorts on the driveway in Albany. (Even going across the road). It’s possible this is the longest snowboard ride in the state’s history too. Though technically it is hail-boarding.
For foreign readers, WA (Western Aust) doesn’t have a snow season. Last regular snow was probably circa 20,000BC.
The ABC reports:
BOM forecaster Matt Boterhoven said snow was an extremely rare occurrence in April.
“It’s exceptional. We’ve only recorded once, in the last 100 years, snow as early as this on top of the Stirling Ranges,” he said.
“It’s related to a very strong cold air mass moving over the south-west of the state, so when conditions get below freezing and there’s precipitation, snow can form on top of Stirling Ranges.”
Mr Boterhoven predicted further snow flurries were possible into Saturday morning — something which came to pass overnight.
ABC on facebook
We all know this is weather not climate. We also know that if this was the earliest heatwave of the season it would be “proof of climate change” on the ABC.
Bluff Knoll, where the snow is, is a five hour drive from Perth. In WA snow is so rare we have “snow chasers”. Reportedly “dozens” of people are headed there to see the snow. Dozens!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom