Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
I thought you would revert to grade two much later Lester. You're getting old man.Read a little about plasma physics before it's too late.:lol:
If you click on the link that LG posted yesterday you can simulate raising the sea level. I maxed out the sea level and Boston and NY were not flooded at all. That was at 15M.
I think that the hysteria of melting ice in the arctic/antarctic seas does not reflect the notion that when water freezes, it expands and will displace a greater volume as a solid than it does as a liquid.
Adding more liquid into the system is offset by the loss of the solid that will also affect the system.
Adding more liquid into the system is offset by the loss of the solid that will also affect the system.
But it does not help the case of global warming either.
Quite some time ago we had a mild winter in New England. GW folks declared that was proof beyond a reasonable doubt about GW. It actually made me think that they may be on to something. However the next winter was insanely cold and we were buried from November to March. The mountains of plowed and snow did not melt until late April. The GW response...well that was global warming that cause the bad winter.
The hurricane season that spawned Katrina as well as others. Proof of Global Warming.
The next year hardly any hurricanes. Proof of Global Warming.
During the last Ice Age the sea level dropped by about 400 feet because there was about a one mile thick glacier covering most of the northern hemisphere. When that ice melted, the sea rose. Not all ice in the north and south pole is floating on water. Some of it is on land. The sea will rise.
the entire mass of ice (above and below the water line) will affect the system. The weight of the ice above the water line exerts pressure that affects the entire system.
Ice does occupy a larger volume than water .... at certain temperatures. When the water gets warmer it also expands. And the reason water expands as it freezes is because of gases (like air) trapped inside.
You are still avoiding the ice that is on land. The poles are not just floating chunks of ice.
My comment is directed to the ice masses in the ocean. However, if you really want to perform an accounting-style analysis; let's not forget that the land-based ice was at one point "free floating" in the system. It had to get deposited there at some point. This being the case, one could make the argument that ice formations reflect a net loss of water (or vapor) from the system.
What I'm driving at is that the colder global temperatures have acted to functionally lower the sea levels by storing water (on land) that otherwise would have been free flowing in the oceans/seas.
If you were to subscribe to this idea, then the concept of global warming (and rising sea levels) should actually be the norm.
What I'm driving at is that the colder global temperatures have acted to functionally lower the sea levels by storing water (on land) that otherwise would have been free flowing in the oceans/seas.
If you were to subscribe to this idea, then the concept of global warming (and rising sea levels) should actually be the norm.
February 07
Electric Snow
A recent paper:
Sudden ice ages could then occur when the surface state of the Earth’s electric field is changed from a positively charged one, to a negative one, assuming a water saturated atmosphere.Read the Full Text
Electric Snow
A recent paper:
Water Freezes Differently on Positively and Negatively Charged Surfaces of Pyroelectric Materials
David Ehre, Etay Lavert, Meir Lahav, Igor Lubomirsky
Although ice melts and water freezes under equilibrium conditions at 0°C, water can be supercooled under homogeneous conditions in a clean environment down to –40°C without freezing. The influence of the electric field on the freezing temperature of supercooled water (electrofreezing) is of topical importance in the living and inanimate worlds. We report that positively charged surfaces of pyroelectric LiTaO3 crystals and SrTiO3 thin films promote ice nucleation, whereas the same surfaces when negatively charged reduce the freezing temperature. Accordingly, droplets of water cooled down on a negatively charged LiTaO3 surface and remaining liquid at –11°C freeze immediately when this surface is heated to –8°C, as a result of the replacement of the negative surface charge by a positive one. Furthermore, powder x-ray diffraction studies demonstrated that the freezing on the positively charged surface starts at the solid/water interface, whereas on a negatively charged surface, ice nucleation starts at the air/water interface. Source
These data suggest that ice formation is dependent on the state of the Earth’s electric field.David Ehre, Etay Lavert, Meir Lahav, Igor Lubomirsky
Although ice melts and water freezes under equilibrium conditions at 0°C, water can be supercooled under homogeneous conditions in a clean environment down to –40°C without freezing. The influence of the electric field on the freezing temperature of supercooled water (electrofreezing) is of topical importance in the living and inanimate worlds. We report that positively charged surfaces of pyroelectric LiTaO3 crystals and SrTiO3 thin films promote ice nucleation, whereas the same surfaces when negatively charged reduce the freezing temperature. Accordingly, droplets of water cooled down on a negatively charged LiTaO3 surface and remaining liquid at –11°C freeze immediately when this surface is heated to –8°C, as a result of the replacement of the negative surface charge by a positive one. Furthermore, powder x-ray diffraction studies demonstrated that the freezing on the positively charged surface starts at the solid/water interface, whereas on a negatively charged surface, ice nucleation starts at the air/water interface. Source
Sudden ice ages could then occur when the surface state of the Earth’s electric field is changed from a positively charged one, to a negative one, assuming a water saturated atmosphere.Read the Full Text
We all know how saturated and surrounded the poles are by LiTaO3 crystals and SrTiO3 thin films. lol
Monbiot is older than the IPCC. You have no idea what he used to base his opinions on. Maybe in college he read scientific journals...something you should try.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims of debunking. Where did I ask you to prove a negative? Please try not to be so obtuse.
That doesn't debunk anything. The paleo-climate is evidence of feedbacks and used by climatologists to estimate climate sensitivity.
It's even in the IPCC. Next.
Nope. This debunks nothing. But it does provide us with the kind of rigorous study that you are basing your opinions on...
Holy crap, if this is the best you can do, then this is going to be fairly one sided. None of that debunks anything Monbiot has said, let alone any of the synthesis reports, or other peer reviewed science.
Right, and they don't find an anthropogenic signal when there were no people.
Jeez you're slow...
No competing explanations, and one which is consistent with reality and observations. That's really the end of it. If you have no competing explanation which works, and one which does, then you keep the one which does. This shouldn't be difficult.
Did you even bother to read those papers I linked to?
Already done. Folks like you simply deny that this is so.
You sure an interesting case. It seems that you prefer to a highly selective perspective that serves to suit a very narrow view.
Point 1
As far as Monbiot being older than the IPCC.. I have old hockey jerseys older than the IPCC - What's your point? Monbiot's debate on the videos in question are recent (ie the IPCC being well established at the time). The obvious parroting of IPCC/UN talking points in the content of his diatribe are what is in question, so unless Monbiot was the one to conceive all of these ideas and deliver them to the IPCC/UN, we can understand exactly where his opinions were developed.
Point 2
I provided evidence of the debunked science on 2 occassions, the last being a partial list of transgressions, admissions or investigations that brought to light the faulty/fraudulent practices being perpetuated by the pro-global warming folks out there. On that note, we haven't even addressed the "lost" original climate data at East Anglia or that NASA is deliberately witholding the availability of raw data despite being compelled by the freedom of information act.
These are the actions of people that do not want the light of day to shine on their lies.
Lastly, the references and links to ice age related sites was intended to get you to think about the notion that these systems have existed throughout history regardless of man's carbon foot print. I find it particularly interesting that you were unable to recognize that relationship.
Point 3
In response to my suggestion that a solid explanation with real proof will be forwarded, you stated that it already exists... Well, lets have it.
Point 1
As far as Monbiot being older than the IPCC.. I have old hockey jerseys older than the IPCC - What's your point? Monbiot's debate on the videos in question are recent (ie the IPCC being well established at the time). The obvious parroting of IPCC/UN talking points in the content of his diatribe are what is in question, so unless Monbiot was the one to conceive all of these ideas and deliver them to the IPCC/UN, we can understand exactly where his opinions were developed.
Point 2
I provided evidence of the debunked science on 2 occassions, the last being a partial list of transgressions, admissions or investigations that brought to light the faulty/fraudulent practices being perpetuated by the pro-global warming folks out there. On that note, we haven't even addressed the "lost" original climate data at East Anglia or that NASA is deliberately witholding the availability of raw data despite being compelled by the freedom of information act.
These are the actions of people that do not want the light of day to shine on their lies.
Lastly, the references and links to ice age related sites was intended to get you to think about the notion that these systems have existed throughout history regardless of man's carbon foot print. I find it particularly interesting that you were unable to recognize that relationship.
Point 3
In response to my suggestion that a solid explanation with real proof will be forwarded, you stated that it already exists... Well, lets have it.
Why, if we have too much water, don't we simply boil it off, or change it to beer and drink it?
Actually one of the predictions concerning global warming was that weather would become more erratic and extreme. For example it was predicted that the Prairies of Canada might have snowier winters and drier summers, and that there might be hurricanes in places that don't usually get hurricanes, and nastier winters in certain areas as well. In other words due to the fact that the Earth is warming the weather would become more erratic and less predictable. I don't know if any of that is happening yet, but it could be.
- Status