But I thought all the ice was melting?

[Concart]

How adult of you.

Your wife must be proud to have such a man.

Correct. And she would absolutely despise everything about you and everything you stand for. You aren't a woman.

 

[Concart]

USGS also wrote it also has a rock carapace from rock fall. That also acts as a shield from solar radiation.


Basic high school science: direct thermal radiation leads to more evaporation.

Nora didn't graduate the first grade.

 

[Yakuda]

So you didn't understand that shading and protection from direct sunlight reduces temperatures by as much as ten or fifteen degrees.

You've never seen a cow standing in the shade of a tree?

Duplicate

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Correct. And she would absolutely despise everything about you and everything you stand for. You aren't a woman.

She would leave you for me.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

USGS also wrote it also has a rock carapace from rock fall. That also acts as a shield from solar radiation.


Basic high school science: direct thermal radiation leads to more evaporation.

Not for 2 miles it doesn't .

lol

Nice try

 

[Yakuda]

So you didn't understand that shading and protection from direct sunlight reduces temperatures by as much as ten or fifteen degrees.

You've never seen a cow standing in the shade of a tree?

From the article

"The youngest glacier on Earth has become a scientific curiosity. International teams of scientists spent weeks up there researching".

So a glacier in the shade is a "scientific curiosity"? And international teams of scientists spent weeks researching, a glacier in the shade? Scientists must be easily impressed and very bored.

 

[Concart]

She would leave you for me.

Many have tried. Many way, way better than you. She would laugh at you, then move on with her day. It's hilarious that you've tried to fool everyone here. You've failed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How to say “you don’t understand climate change” without saying “you don’t understand climate change”.

Praise Gaia!

 

[QP!]

Is someone in this thread actually arguing that direct sunlight is not a factor in glaciers melting and that it is solely temp change?


That if you have two areas with consistent temperature both with the same consistent temperatures, and in neither place the glacier is melting and the temp rises a bit and the one totally shaded does not start melting but the one in direct sunlight does, that it can be the COMBINATION of the two factors that matter for that one?

That the lack of sunlight could see the other one with just the slight temp change not melt or need a slightly higher temp than the one in shade?

That if they took two pieces outside on an average temp day and put one in direct sunlight and the other in total darkness that despite being exposed to the same ambient temp's, the one in the sunlight would melt much quicker?


Is there actually a person so incredibly and laughably stupid they do not understand this?

 

[Yakuda]

Is someone in this thread actually arguing that direct sunlight is not a factor in glaciers melting and that it is solely temp change?


That if you have two areas with consistent temperature both with the same consistent temperatures, and in neither place the glacier is melting and the temp rises a bit and the one totally shaded does not start melting but the one in direct sunlight does, that it can be the COMBINATION of the two factors that matter for that one?

That the lack of sunlight could see the other one with just the slight temp change not melt or need a slightly higher temp than the one in shade?

That if they took two pieces outside on an average temp day and put one in direct sunlight and the other in total darkness that despite being exposed to the same ambient temp's, the one in the sunlight would melt much quicker?


Is there actually a person so incredibly and laughably stupid they do not understand this?

If only you had a brain you wouldnt be like the scarecrow in my avatar

 

[QP!]

If only you had a brain you wouldnt be like the scarecrow in my avatar

Ohhh another person so incredibly stupid they do not understand that you can have a temperature where the ice is holding its own and not melting in one area but then direct sunlight hits it, and the part in the shade continues to not melt while the part in the sun begins to melt.


I would say i would have never thought people on this forum are dumb enough to not understand that direct sunlight adds to the melting of ice but then we are talking science and we know how many on this forum skipped all those classes.

 

[Yakuda]

Ohhh another person so incredibly stupid they do not understand that you can have a temperature where the ice is holding its own and not melting in one area but then direct sunlight hits it, and the part in the shade continues to not melt while the part in the sun begins to melt.


I would say i would have never thought people on this forum are dumb enough to not understand that direct sunlight adds to the melting of ice but then we are talking science and we know how many on this forum skipped all those classes.

You prefer ideas to reading don't you? What was the point of the OP and what were the initial reactions to it by your climate scare friends? If you can figure that out get back to me. I agree with one thing you said though, "...i would never have thought..."

 

[QP!]

You prefer ideas to reading don't you? What was the point of the OP and what were the initial reactions to it by your climate scare friends? If you can figure that out get back to me. I agree with one thing you said though, "...i would never have thought..."

So you are admitting you are so dumb you need me to explain it you?

The point of the OP and subsequent post by the TS was to say that direct sunlight would have no impact on ice melting if the temp was consistent.

She made the point that if the planet has warmed the ice should melt all the same regardless of being shaded or not.

I'll put it this way in one last attempt to help you with your failed comprehension thus far.

If it is night time and the temp is X and no ice is melting. And then as the sun rises and the temp rises, you have some ice in the direct sunlight starting to melt but none of the ice in the shade is melting, the TS is saying 'that should not be possible because the temp is higher all the ice should be melting or the premise is wrong'.

What the TS is arguing is painfully stupid and you fell for it. COngrats.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

How to say “you don’t understand climate change” without saying “you don’t understand climate change”.

It/He/She doesn't understand how to get in out of the rain!

 

[Yakuda]

So you are admitting you are so dumb you need me to explain it you?

The point of the OP and subsequent post by the TS was to say that direct sunlight would have no impact on ice melting if the temp was consistent.

She made the point that if the planet has warmed the ice should melt all the same regardless of being shaded or not.

I'll put it this way in one last attempt to help you with your failed comprehension thus far.

If it is night time and the temp is X and no ice is melting. And then as the sun rises and the temp rises, you have some ice in the direct sunlight starting to melt but none of the ice in the shade is melting, the TS is saying 'that should not be possible because the temp is higher all the ice should be melting or the premise is wrong'.

What the TS is arguing is painfully stupid and you fell for it. COngrats.

You're an idiot.

The argument was the glacier is growing therefore the climate alarmism is bullshit. The two idiots arguing early on said the glacier was in the shade. Why would a glacier in the shade be a "scientific curiosity"?

 

[QP!]

You're an idiot.

The argument was the glacier is growing therefore the climate alarmism is bullshit. The two idiots arguing early on said the glacier was in the shade. Why would a glacier in the shade be a "scientific curiosity"?

lol at calling me an idiot while you PROVE you do not understand the impact of sunlight on ice.

The glacier growing in an area where no sunlight reaches IS NOT proof of anything.

The temperature could be the same inside and outside the volcano crater and the only difference could be daily sunlight as to why one grows and one shrinks. that is granting it is the same temp inside and out which it almost certainly is not. It almost certainly is cooler inside. But lets ignore that.

What you are so incredibly stupid you do not understand is that direct sunlight MATTERS as you are bridging temperatures at points that begin to melt ice.

 

[Yakuda]

lol at calling me an idiot while you PROVE you do not understand the impact of sunlight on ice.

The glacier growing in an area where no sunlight reaches IS NOT proof of anything.

The temperature could be the same inside and outside the volcano crater and the only difference could be daily sunlight as to why one grows and one shrinks. that is granting it is the same temp inside and out which it almost certainly is not. It almost certainly is cooler inside. But lets ignore that.

What you are so incredibly stupid you do not understand is that direct sunlight MATTERS as you are bridging temperatures at points that begin to melt ice.

All I need you to do is explain why a glacier in the shade is a "scientific curiosity".

 

[QP!]

All I need you to do is explain why a glacier in the shade is a "scientific curiosity".

Oh please do explain as i need a good laugh.


And don't forget THIS is specifically what we are talking about here.

How many glaciers in the world lie inside the shade of a volcanic crater and are protected from direct sunlight?

Why would direct sunlight affect global warming?

If the earth was getting that hot they would melt regardless, at least that's what the alarmists tell us is happening.

Instead we see glaciers being created and growing.

Tink clearly thinks ONLY temperature matters and direct sunlight has no effect on a glacier in this position.

Tink clearly does not understand that as the temperatures increase due to global warming GRADUALLY that DOES NOT mean all glaciers in all areas will melt or grow at exactly the same rate and things like sunlight or thickness of glacier or other factors won't also matter.

It is clear Tink simply things on one day it is cold enough that glaciers can grow or stay the same and if global warming does exist and is happening then on that day no glaciers should exist or grow.

Tink does not understand that global warming DOES NOT mean temperatures across the world suddenly become too hot for glacier maintenance and growth. Places like the arctic may still see their glaciers maintaining and growing due to less sunlight and other factors as other regions in the world see theirs disappearing, as the global warming is in the beginning transition period where temperature changes on average are only rising a fraction of a degree.

And clearly you are in the Tink grouping who also are so stupid you do not understand.

 

[Yakuda]

Oh please do explain as i need a good laugh.


And don't forget THIS is specifically what we are talking about here.





Tink clearly thinks ONLY temperature matters and direct sunlight has no effect on a glacier in this position.

Tink clearly does not understand that as the temperatures increase due to global warming GRADUALLY that DOES NOT mean all glaciers in all areas will melt or grow at exactly the same rate and things like sunlight or thickness of glacier or other factors won't also matter.

It is clear Tink simply things on one day it is cold enough that glaciers can grow or stay the same and if global warming does exist and is happening then on that day no glaciers should exist or grow.

Tink does not understand that global warming DOES NOT mean temperatures across the world suddenly become too hot for glacier maintenance and growth. Places like the arctic may still see their glaciers maintaining and growing due to less sunlight and other factors as other regions in the world see theirs disappearing, as the global warming is in the beginning transition period where temperature changes on average are only rising a fraction of a degree.

And clearly you are in the Tink grouping who also are so stupid you do not understand.

Explain why a glacier in the shade is a "scientific curiosity".

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Oh please do explain as i need a good laugh.


And don't forget THIS is specifically what we are talking about here.





Tink clearly thinks ONLY temperature matters and direct sunlight has no effect on a glacier in this position.

Tink clearly does not understand that as the temperatures increase due to global warming GRADUALLY that DOES NOT mean all glaciers in all areas will melt or grow at exactly the same rate and things like sunlight or thickness of glacier or other factors won't also matter.

It is clear Tink simply things on one day it is cold enough that glaciers can grow or stay the same and if global warming does exist and is happening then on that day no glaciers should exist or grow.

Tink does not understand that global warming DOES NOT mean temperatures across the world suddenly become too hot for glacier maintenance and growth. Places like the arctic may still see their glaciers maintaining and growing due to less sunlight and other factors as other regions in the world see theirs disappearing, as the global warming is in the beginning transition period where temperature changes on average are only rising a fraction of a degree.

And clearly you are in the Tink grouping who also are so stupid you do not understand.

So what you are saying is that even though there is global warming that some glaciers will continue to expand.

So what's the problem again?