Accelerating melt of ice sheets now 'unmistakable'

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

I don't know what you are hoping to achieve by all these posts. Just wasting time it seems.

I guess if I were you, and I had posted lots of stuff in error, maybe I'd stick to making personal comments instead of addressing the issues.

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

How exactly am I cherry picking? This is an article about the acceleration of the melting of the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. What's the good new here?

It is getting warmer before it will turn in to a new ice age ???? For some that seems to be a bonus and not to worry to much about. Anyway, not in my lifetimede. I have done my share, and leave nothing but dust behind 

[bignok]

Just now, placeholder said:

I guess if I were you, and I had posted lots of stuff in error, maybe I'd stick to making personal comments instead of addressing the issues.

Haven't posted anything in error unlike yourself. 99% of your posts contain no facts or links. You aren't addressing any issues. Posting negative comments about climate doesn't achieve anything. Just words.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

The good news is southern sea ice is expanding. Pacific islands are expanding. No warming since 2016.  The 2nd law of thermo broken.

 

Yet you cherry pick bad news to suit an agenda.

Sea ice increasing will have no effect on sea levels.  Whereas Greenland and Antarctica shedding glaciers will. Also, the oceans are still getting warmer. Also, Antarctic sea ice levels have since collapsed. Some Pacific islands are getting bigger. But that depends on healthy coral. Will coral stay healthy as ocean temperatures continue to rise and the PH continues to get lower?

[bignok]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Sea ice increasing will have no effect on sea levels.  Whereas Greenland and Antarctica shedding glaciers will. Also, the oceans are still getting warmer. Also, Antarctic sea ice levels have since collapsed. Some Pacific islands are getting bigger. But that depends on healthy coral. Will coral stay healthy as ocean temperatures continue to rise and the PH continues to get lower?

What's your point to all these quotes?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, bignok said:

Haven't posted anything in error unlike yourself. 99% of your posts contain no facts or links. You aren't addressing any issues. Posting negative comments about climate doesn't achieve anything. Just words.

You posted that the South Pole is growing. That the second law of thermodynamics has been broken. what's really funny is that you wrote that 99% of my posts contain no links. That is false.

Challenge me on anything I've said here and I'll produce the links to support it.

[bignok]

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

It is getting warmer before it will turn in to a new ice age ???? For some that seems to be a bonus and not to worry to much about. Anyway, not in my lifetimede. I have done my share, and leave nothing but dust behind 

In 2035 new mini ice age. News headlines we will all freeze. 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

What's your point to all these quotes?

Quotes I've linked to from credible sources?

[placeholder]

Just now, bignok said:

In 2035 new mini ice age. News headlines we will all freeze. 

I'm sure you wouldn't make such a statement without being able to link it to a credible source. As per the rules of the forum. please provide that link.

[bignok]

Just now, placeholder said:

I'm sure you wouldn't make such a statement without being able to link it to a credible source. As per the rules of the forum. please provide that link.

Easy. 

 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, bignok said:

In 2035 new mini ice age. News headlines we will all freeze. 

We are all taken for a ride, and the companies involved have been riding a quite succesful distraction campaign, as well ever science needs to be verified. We have known for a long time what we have been doing to planet earth, and still doing is not good for the planet, and not for us either. The sad thing, we are being taken for a ride when it is coming to solutions, and the continius distraction in media. 

 

If we look at the raw data, we know we can do something, but there is not a chance we will do it. Hell will freeze over before, and  it is to late. 

 

It is quite simple mechanism we are talking about, but still complicated. 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Hummin

[bignok]

Just now, Hummin said:

We are all taken for a ride, and the companies involved have been riding a quite succesful distraction campaign, as well ever science needs to be verified. We have known for a long time what we have been doing to planet earth, and still doing is not good for the planet, and not for us either. The sad thing, we are being taken for a ride when it is coming to solutions, and the continius distraction in media. 

 

If we look at the raw data, we know we can do something, but there is not a chance we will do it. Hell will freeze over before it is to late. 

 

It is quite simple mechanism we are talking about, but still complicated. 

Well yes

Edited April 23, 2023 by bignok

[ozimoron]

12 minutes ago, Hummin said:

It is getting warmer before it will turn in to a new ice age ???? For some that seems to be a bonus and not to worry to much about. Anyway, not in my lifetimede. I have done my share, and leave nothing but dust behind 

Would you estimate that you have made a net contribution to global warming?

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, bignok said:

Please post a link to your claims.

That hell will freeze over before it is to late? 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, bignok said:

Easy. 

 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots

Ah, yes. Valentina Zharkova's "research" She's quite notorious:

 

.Paper That Blames The Sun For Climate Change Was Just Retracted From Major Journal

A paper published last year that claimed global warming was all to do with the Sun has been retracted. Nature Publishing Group-owned Scientific Reports has found that the paper's conclusion was based on a flawed assumption.

The decision comes after sharp criticism from the scientific community prompted the journal's editors to undertake a further review of the study.

The paper, titled "Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale," led by mathematician Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK, was published in June 2019.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-paper-that-blames-the-sun-for-climate-change-has-been-retracted

 

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, bignok said:

Easy. 

 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots

Quote: "This article was amended to make it clear that fluctuations in solar activity are in no way linked to global warming. A clarification has also been made as to how significant the drop in solar activity is likely to be."

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Would you estimate that you have made a net contribution to global warming?

Oh yeah, planting trees that will last 700 years if not someone cut it down before they die. 

 

Nobody will ever be net contribution, but I leave nobody after me that will multiply in the future. It ends with me

[bignok]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Ah, yes. Valentina Zharkova's "research" She's quite notorious:

 

.Paper That Blames The Sun For Climate Change Was Just Retracted From Major Journal

A paper published last year that claimed global warming was all to do with the Sun has been retracted. Nature Publishing Group-owned Scientific Reports has found that the paper's conclusion was based on a flawed assumption.

The decision comes after sharp criticism from the scientific community prompted the journal's editors to undertake a further review of the study.

The paper, titled "Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale," led by mathematician Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK, was published in June 2019.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-paper-that-blames-the-sun-for-climate-change-has-been-retracted

 

More than 1 champ.

 

https://phys.org/news/2006-02-russian-scientist-mini-ice-age.html

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

Posted 2 links. Please stop lying.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/news020722-2

 

https://www.brownstoneresearch.com/bleeding-edge/googles-quantum-computer-just-broke-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

This is about time crystals. Events, if they can be called that, on the quantum scale. It has absolutely zero relevance to climate change or anything macro.

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, bignok said:

More than 1 champ.

 

https://phys.org/news/2006-02-russian-scientist-mini-ice-age.html

Very convenient to cite a prediction with no evidence to back it up. And as we know, solar activity declined sharply in the 21st century and record heat followed. It's always possible to find a few loons to back up whatever you need. But the evidence is and virtually the entire climatolical community is against him. And it's just something he said. As far as I can tell, he has had nothing published in peer reviewed journals about this.

[bignok]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

This is about time crystals. Events, if they can be called that, on the quantum scale. It has absolutely zero relevance to climate change or anything macro.

 

Strong link between climate theories and the 2nd law

 

https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/75/7/30/2848581/Thermodynamics-of-the-climate-systemTo-understand

 

So now it's been broken these theories need to be looked at again

Edited April 23, 2023 by bignok

[Lacessit]

9 minutes ago, bignok said:

Posted 2 links. Please stop lying.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/news020722-2

 

https://www.brownstoneresearch.com/bleeding-edge/googles-quantum-computer-just-broke-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

"Time crystals do not violate the laws of thermodynamics: energy in the overall system is conserved, such a crystal does not spontaneously convert thermal energy into mechanical work, and it cannot serve as a perpetual store of work. But it may change perpetually in a fixed pattern in time for as long as the system can be maintained. They possess "motion without energy"^[16]—their apparent motion does not represent conventional kinetic energy.^[17] Recent experimental advances in probing discrete time crystals in their periodically driven nonequilibrium states have led to the beginning exploration of novel phases of nonequilibrium matter.^[14]

Time crystals do not evade the Second Law of Thermodynamics,^[18] although they are the first objects to spontaneously break "time-translation symmetry", the usual rule that a stable object will remain the same throughout time. In thermodynamics, a time crystal's entropy, understood as a measure of disorder in the system, remains stationary over time, marginally satisfying the second law of thermodynamics by not decreasing."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

You falsely claimed the 2nd law had not been broken. Falsely claimed I posted no links. So you lied twice.

Please, first of all, for some who claims to be sensitive about insults, you should learn the difference between lying and being mistaken. I concede that you posted those links. But why did you post them? And you offered no explanations of why you posted them. You think it's OK to post utterly pointless links. This has nothing to do with climatology. 

[Pink Mist]

Multiple bickering posts and personal attacks have been removed. Please stay civil or face suspension.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To be pedantic sea ice doesn't count, as it is largely seasonal, and as made from sea water makes no difference when it melts.

What does count are the ice shelves which are made of ice from the mainland flowing outwards.

Those are the ones that make large icebergs when they break off.

IMO if sea ice is expanding it has to be because the sea is colder further out which sort of poses a problem for the "oceans are getting warmer" theories.

 

You could try reading the article that bignok actually linked to in order to find out why your opinion is invalid.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, bignok said:

Ice melts yearly and reforms. It doesn't matter. In 10 years we will still hear the same warnings. Reality isn't matching the models. The 2nd law of thermo has been broken. These guys are guessing.

It depends where and how it reforms. In the Arctic, which is a sea, the sea ice has been thinning. It used to be that there was a lot of old thicker ice. Now that's gone. So the ice disappears faster. 

Why is Arctic ice getting younger and thinner?

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/20/ice-free-arctic-summers-are-on-the-way-researchers-say

 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Hummin said:

We can still fix what we are doing wrong with better solutions? 

 

Well earth is doing great, and adjust itself, we are the specie that is not doing very well among many others, A big wipe out of living creatures is no big problem for earth

I'm a bit puzzled about the "better solutions". Perhaps you could explain.

 

If one believes that the earth is a living organism ( Gaia ), one might be of the opinion that Gaia is trying to get rid of humanity in the same way as we try to get rid of an insect trying to bite us.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Hummin said:

Oh yeah, planting trees that will last 700 years if not someone cut it down before they die. 

 

Nobody will ever be net contribution, but I leave nobody after me that will multiply in the future. It ends with me

It seems strange to me that the demonstrators that I see demanding that "something must be done" but without offering any solutions, never talk about reducing population, which IMO would be the single most beneficial thing that people can do to reduce pollution, and destruction of the environment.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It seems strange to me that the demonstrators that I see demanding that "something must be done" but without offering any solutions, never talk about reducing population, which IMO would be the single most beneficial thing that people can do to reduce pollution, and destruction of the environment.

What are you talking about? The solutions are crystal clear and involve stopping burning of fossil fuels as much as practicable, reducing methane gas emissions and stopping deforestation. Every primary school kid knows this. Only climate change deniers seem to be confused and conflicted.

 

Reducing population is the holocaust (final) solution.

Edited April 23, 2023 by ozimoron

[Hummin]

31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm a bit puzzled about the "better solutions". Perhaps you could explain.

 

If one believes that the earth is a living organism ( Gaia ), one might be of the opinion that Gaia is trying to get rid of humanity in the same way as we try to get rid of an insect trying to bite us.

it is a much larger explanation than Im cabable to do right now. The simple answer, we become to many when we tricked the nature with surving and poplulate to quick, and with no shame use and abuse nature to just waste it for pleasure. 

 

Stupid abuse with no thought of tomorow

Edited April 23, 2023 by Hummin