Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Which simply isn't the case, nor is it likely to be the case in the future. Simply reading about the fuel cell technology would educate you on this, and more likely than not, the overall volume of H2O on this planet will increase. Does this frighten you?

 

Thats not what the study is about. I was explaining the connection between solar storms and the ozone layer.

Showering the Ozone layer with protons consumes the ozone layer, by converting it into other molecules, including water, and parts of water like OH- + H+ ions that combine to form water once the solar storm is over.

 

Thanks! It took awareness, along with a lot of time and practice, for me to develop such patience.

 

From the BBC article that your source thrashes.

"Rather than being seen as something that only had a 3% chance of becoming reality, it became known as the "business-as-usual" scenario, by climate scientists and has been used in more than 2,000 research papers since."

And

"Researchers say that on current trends, a rise in temperatures of around 3C is far more likely."

So the lesson here is two fold:

1) The most extreme scenario is very unlikely and it was always very unlikely.
2) The more likely scenario is a rise of temperature by about 3C by the year 2100, which is still far above the global agreements on a goal of 2 degrees or less.

 

Source it.

 

RQAA.

 

Still waiting on you to link a single person or article that backs up your interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics as it relates to AGW.

 

Um.... ok, so if 40% of anthropogenic CO2 remains unsunk, it also assumes that 40% of the naturally emitted CO2 does as well, as the link clearly stated. So, if man is able to produce ~<4% of all CO2 emissions, and nature produces the ~95+%, the vast majority of suspended CO2 is still being created naturally.... Math clearly not being your strong suit here, why bother to continue with your demonstration at all?

 

They aren't my laws. I didn't come up with them.

What about them?

 

Honestly, it's like baby sitting sometimes....

 

None are violated by global warming.

 

Thats correct. Its not a closed system as some claim.

Earth is constantly adding mass, Its a simple provable fact. Some of the mass is hydrogen, helium, asteroids, meteorites, dust, and less detectable water.....

This story doesnt take into adding water into account

By far the biggest contributor to the world's mass is the 40,000 tonnes of dust that is falling from space to Earth, says Dr Smith.

"[The dust] is basically the vestiges of the solar system that spawned us, either asteroids that broke up or things that never formed into a planet, and it's drifting around.

"The Earth is acting like a giant vacuum cleaner powered by gravity in space, pulling in particles of dust," says Dr Smith.

 

The thing you are overlooking is that natural CO2 was in balance. Our addition is what is unbalancing it.

 

No, that is not what the article "clearly stated." At all.

Think about what you just concluded. That 40% of all CO2 emissions get absorbed and accumulated into the upper atmosphere every year.

 

Without any standard reference to what words mean in any discussion, I must use my definition until another is logically presented and I accept it. The dictionary simply provides reference, such as “Science” defined as knowledge:

“1300–50; Middle English < Middle French < Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sciēns), present participle of scīre to know + -ia –ia” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science

The phrase, “Science builds upon knowledge…,” to me therefore becomes, “Knowledge builds upon knowledge…”

Since science is “a set of falsifiable theories” and since “a set of falsifiable theories has not been confirmed” and since “Science does not confirm (prove) anything. It only disproves…,” therefore, I cannot use science to prove you exist, consequently, any debate with what I cannot prove exists would be pointless.

Why would I define “Climate Change” to something that does not exist?

 

Here is a picture to help you understand the math.



29 + 439 + 332 = 800 total emissions from both natural and anthropomorphic sources
439 + 332 = 771 total emissions from natural sources
450 + 338 = 788 total absorption

If humans were not producing 29 GGT per year, then the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere would be decreasing by 17 GGT (771 - 788 = -17) per year.

Instead Humans are producing an additional 29 GGT per year, and thus 12 GGT accumulates each year (800 - 788 = 12).

 

Maybe you can give me an example of us making hydrogen without some form of water?
My sources tell me we have lost water. Where are you finding this new water?

 

Can hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water?

QUESTION: Why can’t we combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water?

ANSWER: We can combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water. And we can even get energy out of the process that we might be able to use to light a home or drive a car. But, of course, there are some details that make it a bit challenging.

First of all, if we simply mix a container of oxygen gas with a container of hydrogen gas, at room temperature and pressure, then nothing (or not much) will happen. The molecules of oxygen and hydrogen would be “happier” to join together to form water, but they need a little kick before that reaction will happen. Using an imperfect analogy, you can think of a hydrogen molecule as two magnets joined together, and the oxygen molecule as two differently shaped magnets joined together. A more tightly packed magnet can be formed by joining the hydrogen and oxygen magnets into a water magnet, but unless they bang into each other fast enough this won’t happen. Chemists say that an activation energy is needed for the reaction to occur.


We can supply this activation energy with a spark. But then, as you might guess, kaboom! If the magnets rearrange themselves into the more tightly packed water molecule, there is now energy left over that makes the water (vapor, actually) hot. Based on my calculations, if we combine a typical canister of hydrogen at 2,500 pounds per square inch pressure with a similar oxygen canister, the resulting water vapor will heat up by several thousand degrees Fahrenheit. This is why NASA uses liquid hydrogen and oxygen in the big, orange, external fuel tank that helps the space shuttle get into orbit.


Second Source
CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS

Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun’s corona. They can eject billions of tons of coronal material and carry an embedded magnetic field (frozen in flux) that is stronger than the background solar wind interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength. CMEs travel outward from the Sun at speeds ranging from slower than 250 kilometers per second (km/s) to as fast as near 3000 km/s. The fastest Earth-directed CMEs can reach our planet in as little as 15-18 hours. Slower CMEs can take several days to arrive. They expand in size as they propagate away from the Sun and larger CMEs can reach a size comprising nearly a quarter of the space between Earth and the Sun by the time it reaches our planet.

The more explosive CMEs generally begin when highly twisted magnetic field structures (flux ropes) contained in the Sun’s lower corona become too stressed and realign into a less tense configuration – a process called magnetic reconnection. This can result in the sudden release of electromagnetic energy in the form of a solar flare; which typically accompanies the explosive acceleration of plasma away from the Sun – the CME. These types of CMEs usually take place from areas of the Sun with localized fields of strong and stressed magnetic flux; such as active regions associated with sunspot groups. CMEs can also occur from locations where relatively cool and denser plasma is trapped and suspended by magnetic flux extending up to the inner corona - filaments and prominences. When these flux ropes reconfigure, the denser filament or prominence can collapse back to the solar surface and be quietly reabsorbed, or a CME may result. CMEs travelling faster than the background solar wind speed can generate a shock wave. These shock waves can accelerate charged particles ahead of them – causing increased radiation storm potential or intensity.

end of sources

The ozone layer only exists in the upper stratosphere where air pressure much much lower than at sea level. Ozone is such an unstable molecule, this area of the atmosphere is the only place on earth it can exist for more than a second or so.

 

Yup. You will notice that many people don't even take the time to read through and understand THEIR OWN "holy links" that they are appealing to. That's why I typically don't even bother reading through them and just call them out for the False Authority Fallacy that they are. Sometimes I will go through them point by point.

You will notice that I never make any appeals to "holy links". Instead, I form all of my own arguments. I will occasionally use links as a visual aid, but I've long ago stopped using them in place of forming my own arguments. It's just evidence of intellectual laziness.

 

Because I want to know if those 2 places have gotten hotter or cooler.

 

Yup, when one moves the goalposts around as often as AGW Church Members like to do, it gets difficult for them to stay consistent. This typically leads to the formation of numerous paradoxes in their argumentation.

 

The sun farts hydrogen, every second of every day.

 

“As of 2018, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming or partial oxidation of methane and coal gasification with only a small quantity by other routes such as biomass gasification or electrolysis of water.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel

Whereas fresh water locally may be depleted from climate change, the total mass of water on earth is said to be mostly constant, goes up and down depending upon what hits us or what comes out of volcanoes...

 

Saw something in the news about it the other day, some possible improvement, not actually out yet though. Kind of wishing that a Zero type motorcycle could be powered that way, so range would not be such a problem.

 

The whole "ozone scare" by the Church of the Ozone Hole is a complete farce as well. We couldn't deplete the ozone layer even if we purposely tried. Ozone forms via the action of UV-B sunlight on oxygen, so as long as we have sunlight and oxygen, we have ozone.

Yes, there ARE ozone holes at each of the poles during their respective Winters, but that is because there is no sunlight there at that time. So, once again, just more irrational fear that gets sold to people