Greenland's most critical glacier is suddenly gaining ice. CNN: here's why that's bad

submitted by iamonlyoneman from edition.cnn.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The enhanced greenhouse effect is contributing to the ice mass loss in Greenland.

Show me the math on that. Let me run the experiment to verify your claims.

You can't because it is not real science in the traditional sense. It is modern "science" which is your religious claims. Claims made by "preists" of your religion that the common man has to simply believe "because it's science".

Real science says that man made co2 is a tiny fraction of all co2 in the atmosphere. Real science says that co2 only blocks a tiny fraction of the infrared spectrum and can NOT block the majority of radiant heat. Real science says that co2 increases lead to diminishing effects on insulation, meaning every addition to co2 blocks less heat than the last. Real science says that co2 is a tiny impact on temperatures compares to all the other contributors. It is far from the dominant effect and absolutely NOT a "thermostat" as your religion claims.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Show me the math on that.

It's not rocket science mate. I've melts more when it's hotter.

Real science says that man made co2 is a tiny fraction of all co2 in the atmosphere.

Human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial 280 or 290 ppm to today's 415 ppm.

In round numbers 30% anthropogenic.

Is that what you're calling a tiny fraction?

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth's emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.

Yes the impact of greenhouse gases is stated per doubling of concentration. The effect decreases with increasing concentration.

I'm not that interested in flat earthers

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes the impact of greenhouse gases is stated per doubling of concentration. The effect decreases with increasing concentration.

Do you understand that diminishing effect literally disproves the run away greenhouse effect that your religion espouses?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not religious.

What do you mean by runaway warming?

This is climate change. The drop in global food production, this year hitting europe, previous years hitting Africa and asia. Coal reef bleaching. Wildfires. Heatwaves. Drought. Flooding. Ice sheet mass loss. That's from there 1.5 degrees we've seen.

If we stop emitting tonight there's 20 years warning in the post. Maybe 1 or 2 more degrees.

Bottom line is you're arguing a straw man, and it's boring.