Hedge,![]()
Explain the ice growth in Antarctica :mj07:
Hedge,
You're referencing a single NASA report in 2015. Interestingly enough this is the same organization that published the vital signs of the planet article you called fake in another thread.
Anyway, the ice in the antarctic is not growing outwardly. It's increasing in mass and density vertically and only has recently. So the actual acreage or circumference is still shrinking. The reason it's growing upwardly is due to increased precipitation which is due to warming temperatures accelerating evaporation. The increased water vapor freezes on the small area left that is still remains cold.
A good example of exactly how this happens is if you were cooking stew, frozen pizza, boiling water, whatever and move it straight from cooktop or oven directly to your freezer you'll immediately notice the visible water vapor. Do that enough times and ice/frost will develop on or near to the condenser and it will continue to build there while the areas further from the condenser will not accumulate ice.
If you never put the boiling water or pizza in the freezer, you'd not see any ice accumulation at all. Most freezers are frost free anymore but I'm guessing you've seen an older freezer that had to be thawed due to ice accumulation. That ice accumulated due to opening and closing the door and raising the temperature. Same phenomenon as global climate change same result.
That's why Antarctica's ice is increasing in density.
Keep in mind that the NASA study is singular. There are several more that have conflicting data, quite a few actually.
The climate is changing and carbon dioxide content is steadily increasing. Whether you accept it or nor won't change anything. Probably 85% of our climates anthrpogenic carbon dioxide (human produced) is absorbed by the oceans in a differential pressure gas exchange. Once the sea absorbs the co2 it is changed over time to carbonic acid and it's by products. If we continue to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the partial pressure of the gas will increase and overcome the partial pressure of the sea thus infusing more CO2 into the oceans than it can bring to equilibrium and ultimately make the oceans acidic. By by oceans, by by us. It's as simple that.
Like I said, you can deny it if you'd like, but it's going to happen if we continue on this path whether you believe it it not. Laws and precautions will be put into effect with it without climate denier's input.
Hope this helps,
FDC
Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk
Hedge,
You're referencing a single NASA report in 2015. Interestingly enough this is the same organization that published the vital signs of the planet article you called fake in another thread.
Anyway, the ice in the antarctic is not growing outwardly. It's increasing in mass and density vertically and only has recently. So the actual acreage or circumference is still shrinking. The reason it's growing upwardly is due to increased precipitation which is due to warming temperatures accelerating evaporation. The increased water vapor freezes on the small area left that is still remains cold.
A good example of exactly how this happens is if you were cooking stew, frozen pizza, boiling water, whatever and move it straight from cooktop or oven directly to your freezer you'll immediately notice the visible water vapor. Do that enough times and ice/frost will develop on or near to the condenser and it will continue to build there while the areas further from the condenser will not accumulate ice.
If you never put the boiling water or pizza in the freezer, you'd not see any ice accumulation at all. Most freezers are frost free anymore but I'm guessing you've seen an older freezer that had to be thawed due to ice accumulation. That ice accumulated due to opening and closing the door and raising the temperature. Same phenomenon as global climate change same result.
That's why Antarctica's ice is increasing in density.
Keep in mind that the NASA study is singular. There are several more that have conflicting data, quite a few actually.
The climate is changing and carbon dioxide content is steadily increasing. Whether you accept it or nor won't change anything. Probably 85% of our climates anthrpogenic carbon dioxide (human produced) is absorbed by the oceans in a differential pressure gas exchange. Once the sea absorbs the co2 it is changed over time to carbonic acid and it's by products. If we continue to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the partial pressure of the gas will increase and overcome the partial pressure of the sea thus infusing more CO2 into the oceans than it can bring to equilibrium and ultimately make the oceans acidic. By by oceans, by by us. It's as simple that.
Like I said, you can deny it if you'd like, but it's going to happen if we continue on this path whether you believe it it not. Laws and precautions will be put into effect with it without climate denier's input.
Hope this helps,
FDC
Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk
Shouldn't these cockSuckers have a teleconference instead of flying in to these events?
:0008
The dinosaurs died off due to a meteor strike. Nobody is "debating" climate change. My state is going to get crushed. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article65948497.html
Hedgetard is just an idiot. Everybody knows it but him.
Well Skull first off your post is misleading. If you'd posted the entire article you'd see that there was not 1700 private jets flown to Davos. All the headlines you posted above, the daily mail, insider etc..., got that number from a CNN Money report. CNN Money erroneously reported the number of movements (every takeoff and every landing is considered a movement) expected during the week of the climate conference. The average number of flights operated at Davos is 850 over a five day span, so that would leave 850 flights however corporate jets rarely sit idle for a week so they may leave and come back to pick up said attendees. That would be 4 movements each plane. Factor in the 79 charter flights scheduled that week and your 1700 number is now much closer to 170. All this is in the original article you posted, but got cut off in your post.Shouldn't these cockSuckers have a teleconference instead of flying in to these events?
:0008
Man made emissions are accelerating climate change, nobody is asserting that they caused events that predated them. Besides, i thought Republicans believe the earth is only 6000 years old anyway?explain the extinction of the dinosaurs and tell me how it was man made :0008
:0corn :0corn :0corn
Won't have a choice soon enough. The state is in for hard times. I'll have to take The Boys' word on Detroit. I will be heading to Colorado.
explain the extinction of the dinosaurs and tell me how it was man made :0008
:0corn :0corn :0corn
Well Skull first off your post is misleading. If you'd posted the entire article you'd see that there was not 1700 private jets flown to Davos. All the headlines you posted above, the daily mail, insider etc..., got that number from a CNN Money report. CNN Money erroneously reported the number of movements (every takeoff and every landing is considered a movement) expected during the week of the climate conference. The average number of flights operated at Davos is 850 over a five day span, so that would leave 850 flights however corporate jets rarely sit idle for a week so they may leave and come back to pick up said attendees. That would be 4 movements each plane. Factor in the 79 charter flights scheduled that week and your 1700 number is now much closer to 170. All this is in the original article you posted, but got cut off in your post.
By comparison, Donald Trump has recorded 71 flights in his private jet in a 90 day span during his campaign. Assuming the plane sat waiting for him and that it went only from destination to destination it's still for movements every flight for 284 movements which would make him a much worse "cocksucker" as it relates to a carbon footprint.
I can't see how you could have a five day conference via teleconference and expect that to reduce carbon emissions as only two attendees don't use fossil fuels for energy. Just the energy required to run all the equipment needed, not to mention the heat and air conditioning at now thousands of different locations tuned into the conference. I think you'd come out on the losing end of that idea.
I've always been curious as to why conservative media comes up with these obfuscated headlines and erroneous facts when they deny climate change in the first place, but yeah they could have teleconferenced I suppose.
Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk
explain the extinction of the dinosaurs and tell me how it was man made :0008
:0corn :0corn :0corn
I saw that and I figured that's why it read like that. I'm certain there are shitty people in every organization and they're not an exception. Poor transportation decisions by some doesn't negate the science though. That's my point. I'm not even trying to convince anyone to believe it or not. Climate change is here and human consumption is accelerating it. That is clear to myself and 99.99% of the scientific community. What to do about it or how to dissuade the worst offenders is another discussion.That was a copy and paste of page 1 Google search, multiple stories to choose from.
:0008
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.
