Big Antarctic iceberg edges out to sea

On Thursday, 28 September 2017 17:57:12 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

Like I said, the black and white world of the intolerant leftists who DESPISE hearing any views but their own and who will do anything (witness campus life today) to shut them down.

How are the flying lessons coming along? I find sharp left barrel rolls the hardest without any moral rudder for guidance.

As you have no free will either, do you need to be told what to think each day, by "the voice" you hear on Twitter. ;-)

Did you notice that as soon as I mentioned that even the GREATEST [Ger]Man in the Universe [no not Merkel!] is limited to a fixed number of [imaginary] characters that Twitter immediately doubled it?

That's a bit like counting attendees at a presidential inauguration, isn't it? Think of a number and double it. Then double it again. Then keep doubling it. What was the original number? A picture is worth a thousand [false] words?

There's a wonderful irony, that countless billions of other humans need to be told what to think by their own raving hypocrites. Imagine paying through the nose every single day of your life for their essential [snake] oils? And, it's not even organic! Burp! ))

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 6:45:44 AM UTC+1, Chris.B wrote:

You write pure, intolerable rubbish that would turn people off coming to this newsgroup.

RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 09:39:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 September 2017 06:28:45 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41366504

When A-68 moves clear of its birth position it will reveal seafloor
that probably has not been free of ice cover for 120,000 years -
during the peak of the last warm phase in Earth's history known as the Eemian.

Maybe, finally Hitler is found under the ice sheet? (o:

We are in a warming phase now and have been since the last ice-age ended.

We are riding a very slow natural warming phase since the last
interglacial (we are still in an ice age). On top of that we are
riding a very rapid warming phase which is almost entirely the product
of human activity.

Uh....no.


No to the first statement. We're in a slow cooling phase of the
Milankovitch cycles although an ice age is not due for at least 50,000
years.
Yes to the second statement.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 08:54:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Then you are not keeping up with the science. Existing models produce
predictions which are strongly supported by observations

Models....Same ones they use that can't even accurately predict weather out 3-4 days.

No. The models used for weather prediction are completely different
than the ones used for studying climate.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:42:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

No to the first statement. We're in a slow cooling phase of the
Milankovitch cycles although an ice age is not due for at least 50,000
years.

Not sure about that. Not that it's important, since the underlying
trend isn't the issue now. But we are in an ice age now. What you're
calling an ice age you should be calling a glacial period. We've been
in an ice age for several million years. This is just an interglacial.

RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 09:07:32 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:42:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 09:39:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 September 2017 06:28:45 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41366504

When A-68 moves clear of its birth position it will reveal seafloor
that probably has not been free of ice cover for 120,000 years -
during the peak of the last warm phase in Earth's history known as the Eemian.

Maybe, finally Hitler is found under the ice sheet? (o:

We are in a warming phase now and have been since the last ice-age ended.

We are riding a very slow natural warming phase since the last
interglacial (we are still in an ice age). On top of that we are
riding a very rapid warming phase which is almost entirely the product
of human activity.

Uh....no.

You are factually in error. Clearly a science denier.

In the black and white world of leftism where (for example) a minor pass
= a rape, it's not hard to think anyone who doesn't believe in the
fragile theory of man-made global warming automatically doesn't believe in "science."


OK - as a beginning tell us how our understanding of the IR behaviour of
CO2 is wrong. Note: when I was doing physical chemistry practicals around
1971 the results we got in our spectroscopy marched the textbooks.

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
This reminds me of the socialists and Brexit in the UK as they manage not
to discuss the biggest challenges facing the UK at a conference over the
last few days. A Labour party conference would be almost
indistinguishable from a large dart tournament 30 years ago but now looks
like a student union ideology fest and sky blue thinking. The sheer
effort to maintain that nothing new is happening by the empiricist
community is likewise a sight to behold but sooner or later reality comes
calling for academic and social politics.

For anyone involved in astronomy since antiquity there never was a 'flat
Earth' but there is an ideology that totally perverts cause and effect -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

What can be said, a stationary Earth where the weather systems move
across its face while the circle of illumination pivots on an Earth with
a zero degree inclination. This is something a mindless vandal would do
to a work of art yet everyone manages to avoid looking at it.



Enlighten us on your knowledge of the structure of the CO2 molecule and how
that affects its infrared behaviour.

On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 3:00:46 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:
This reminds me of the socialists and Brexit in the UK as they manage not
to discuss the biggest challenges facing the UK at a conference over the
last few days. A Labour party conference would be almost
indistinguishable from a large dart tournament 30 years ago but now looks
like a student union ideology fest and sky blue thinking. The sheer
effort to maintain that nothing new is happening by the empiricist
community is likewise a sight to behold but sooner or later reality comes
calling for academic and social politics.

For anyone involved in astronomy since antiquity there never was a 'flat
Earth' but there is an ideology that totally perverts cause and effect -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

What can be said, a stationary Earth where the weather systems move
across its face while the circle of illumination pivots on an Earth with
a zero degree inclination. This is something a mindless vandal would do
to a work of art yet everyone manages to avoid looking at it.



Enlighten us on your knowledge of the structure of the CO2 molecule and how
that affects its infrared behaviour.

What are you doing in an astronomy forum trying to discuss chemistry and the last time I talked quasicrystals with you, seemingly your area of expertise, you brought up some fool's notion about the Phi proportion. Terrestrial sciences where the motions of the planet mesh up with effects such as meteorology and evolutionary geology don't admit petty celestial sphere enthusiasts and opinionists (theorists) who know no better.

What did I tell you about the precession of the Equinoxes and the further refinement beyond the extra day/rotation correction needed to bring rotations into a closer proximity to orbital circuits as a proportion so forget Milankovitch and his cycles.

You should be ashamed of the pivoting circle of illumination that fits in with celestial sphere ideologies but you are just an old man waiting for the grave as your surroundings and the changes in it every day and season have lost all meaning.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:00:43 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

OK - as a beginning tell us how our understanding of the IR behaviour of
CO2 is wrong.

Well, the IR behavior of CO2 is clearly leftist, and therefore wrong
by definition.

Mark Storkamp wrote:
In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:42:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 09:39:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 September 2017 06:28:45 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41366504

When A-68 moves clear of its birth position it will reveal seafloor
that probably has not been free of ice cover for 120,000 years - during
the peak of the last warm phase in Earth's history known as the Eemian.

Maybe, finally Hitler is found under the ice sheet? (o:

We are in a warming phase now and have been since the last ice-age ended.

We are riding a very slow natural warming phase since the last
interglacial (we are still in an ice age). On top of that we are
riding a very rapid warming phase which is almost entirely the product
of human activity.

Uh....no.

You are factually in error. Clearly a science denier.

Maybe they teach science differently now than they used to, but I
remember it being:

1. Make observations

2. Develop a theory

3. Make predictions based on theory

4. Observe results

5. Revise theory as needed based on new findings.

I'm seeing steps 1 through 3 being carried out in 'climate science', but
I'm not seeing much in the way of 4 or 5. Predict an increase in storm
frequency, and we go a decade without a major hurricane landfall.
Predict no more snow in New York, and we have record snowfalls. Predict
heat waves across the country, and we don't hit 90 even once in August,
the hottest month of the year. Lake temperatures at record lows for the
summer. I hope you can see why some might be skeptical.

Is the process of comparing predictions to their outcomes denial? If I
were to say the predictions must be correct, therefore the observations
are in error, the proper way to conduct science? Or simply the best way
to get grants.

--



Observation of properties of carbon dioxide by Svante Arrhenius.
Prediction that rises on CO2 concentrations would cause warming of the
Earth.
Observation of rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 concentration at Moana Loa
observatory.
Observation of rising global temperature.
No need to revise theory.
Melting of north polar ice cap.
Increase in break up of Antarctic ice and consequent reduction of salinity
in antarctic seas.
Huge craters develop in Siberia as permafrost melts.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170...getting-bigger

Melting of Greenland Ice sheets.
Record land temperatures.
Species in Northern Hemisphere slowly migrate north.
Spring getting earlier every year.
Autumn getting later every year