Antarctica gains ice for first time in decades, reversing trend of mass loss, study finds (65 Viewers)

[snakestretcher]

Stop with the half truths, which can be a lie....

"But most scientists stress the rebound is likely temporary unless supported by larger climatic trends."

that is the quote.

UNLESS SUPPORTED BY A LARGER CLIMATE TREND!

Stop your cherry picking. It is possible a larger trend is found.

So you have nothing more constructive to offer than semantic tennis. I can play that game too; your serve...

 

[snakestretcher]

There is never 100% certainty. If that is what you demand, then you must live an exceptionally, painful, sheltered life.

It will not be wind power that does that. It is too expensive to maintain without the tax dollar subsidies. The recycling is terrible. The blades do not last as long as advertised, and they are cut up an put in landfills. The wind farms kill endangers species of birds.

What a pile of ignorant crap, straight from the mouths of some right wing AGW denier website! Denmark, for example, enjoys getting 60% of her energy from wind.

10 Examples of Successful Wind Energy Solutions

We have gathered 10 examples of wind energy solutions. Learn from existing cases ranging from energy parks to wind park cooperatives.

stateofgreen.com

Wind power in Denmark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The top 10 countries with the most wind energy capacity: Exploring Global Trends and Development

Wind power sits at the centre of the renewable energy transition. Which top 10 countries have the highest installed wind energy capacity?

www.power-technology.com

 

[longview]

Posters repeatedly show exactly that, and yet you find reasons to dismiss the citations because you can't stand the truth.

Where has someone shown the "Entire Scientific Community" agrees that added CO2 causes warming? Please Cite?

 

[NOLA Dude]

Where has someone shown the "Entire Scientific Community" agrees that added CO2 causes warming? Please Cite?

And that "entire scientific community" all identically missed this increase in ice. How could they all get it so wrong identically?

 

[MAGAnificent]

I'm glad you agree that NASA, along with the world's most brilliant scientific minds aren't worth shit. Maybe educate yourself on the subject instead of lashing out in ignorance

That is a very ignorant attempt at projection on your part. I am a big fan of NASA, at least when it comes to their primary mission, which is space exploration. However, I will not defer to them on man-made climate change quackery.

 

[longview]

What a pile of ignorant crap, straight from the mouths of some right wing AGW denier website! Denmark, for example, enjoys getting 60% of her energy from wind.

10 Examples of Successful Wind Energy Solutions

We have gathered 10 examples of wind energy solutions. Learn from existing cases ranging from energy parks to wind park cooperatives.

stateofgreen.com

Wind power in Denmark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The top 10 countries with the most wind energy capacity: Exploring Global Trends and Development

Wind power sits at the centre of the renewable energy transition. Which top 10 countries have the highest installed wind energy capacity?

www.power-technology.com

I wonder what the relationship is between what percentage of power a country gets from Wind power,
and the price of electricity for consumers?
Denmark pays about 41 cents per kWh (2.73 DKK), which to me is very high.

 

[NOLA Dude]

What a pile of ignorant crap, straight from the mouths of some right wing AGW denier website! Denmark, for example, enjoys getting 60% of her energy from wind.

10 Examples of Successful Wind Energy Solutions

We have gathered 10 examples of wind energy solutions. Learn from existing cases ranging from energy parks to wind park cooperatives.

stateofgreen.com

Wind power in Denmark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The top 10 countries with the most wind energy capacity: Exploring Global Trends and Development

Wind power sits at the centre of the renewable energy transition. Which top 10 countries have the highest installed wind energy capacity?

www.power-technology.com

How did that wind power look when Spain had a huge blackout?

The widespread outage raises questions about the resilience of the power infrastructure in Spain and Portugal — and to an extent, Europe. The two countries have invested heavily in building renewable energy sources like wind turbines and solar farms.

More than half of Spain’s electricity came from renewable energy as of last year, up from about a quarter 15 years ago. That rapid increase has put Spain at the forefront of Europe’s transition to renewable energy and led to much lower electricity prices and less reliance on fossil fuels.

This shift, though, may also have made the grid more prone to the sort of disruption that occurred on Monday. “When you have more renewables on the grid,” Ms. Ramdas said, “then your grid is more sensitive for these kind of disturbances.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/29/business/spain-renewable-energy-power-grid.html

 

[jpn]

Your charts support the notion that our problem, at least during the years shown, was spending, not revenue, even with the reduced tax rates.

When the mind is sealed shut, the eyes see only one thing.

 

[snakestretcher]

How did that wind power look when Spain had a huge blackout?

The widespread outage raises questions about the resilience of the power infrastructure in Spain and Portugal — and to an extent, Europe. The two countries have invested heavily in building renewable energy sources like wind turbines and solar farms.

More than half of Spain’s electricity came from renewable energy as of last year, up from about a quarter 15 years ago. That rapid increase has put Spain at the forefront of Europe’s transition to renewable energy and led to much lower electricity prices and less reliance on fossil fuels.

This shift, though, may also have made the grid more prone to the sort of disruption that occurred on Monday. “When you have more renewables on the grid,” Ms. Ramdas said, “then your grid is more sensitive for these kind of disturbances.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/29/business/spain-renewable-energy-power-grid.html

Power outages happen with or without wind energy. What's your point?

 

[jpn]

Where has someone shown the "Entire Scientific Community" agrees that added CO2 causes warming? Please Cite?

Oh, please. I've shown you the "overwhelming consensus" citations over and over. You always find some bullshit reason to object to them.

 

[snakestretcher]

I wonder what the relationship is between what percentage of power a country gets from Wind power,
and the price of electricity for consumers?
Denmark pays about 41 cents per kWh (2.73 DKK), which to me is very high.

The standard/cost of living is very high in Scandinavian nations generally, and salaries are consequently higher than in the US, offsetting what appears an anomaly..

Cost of living in United States compared to Denmark

Cost of living in United States compared to Denmark. We provide several metrics to compare the cost of living including cost of groceries, transportation, and more.

www.mylifeelsewhere.com

 

[longview]

Oh, please. I've shown you the "overwhelming consensus" citations over and over. You always find some bullshit reason to object to them.

There is a consensus that Human activity can change the climate, But the consensus does not include which human activity,
or how much said activity changes the climate.

 

[jpn]

There is a consensus that Human activity can change the climate,

No, the consensus is that human activity has changed the climate, not can change the climate.

But the consensus does not include which human activity,

greenhouse gases

or how much said activity changes the climate.

Not with precision, no, but the overall trend is undeniable, which is why all the denials sound so desperate and disingenuous.

 

[snakestretcher]

There is a consensus that Human activity can change the climate, But the consensus does not include which human activity,
or how much said activity changes the climate.

Yes it does; emissions, mainly from fossil fuels/greenhouse gases (CO2). Have you been living in a cave somewhere and didn't hear the news? I suggest you quick trying to split hairs and face facts. Here's a reminder of those facts...

Causes of climate change

The evidence is clear: climate change mainly cause by burning fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal, which release carbon dioxide and heat up the planet.

weather.metoffice.gov.uk

Causes and Effects of Climate Change | United Nations

www.un.org

 

[longview]

No, the consensus is that human activity has changed the climate, not can change the climate.

greenhouse gases

Not with precision, no, but the overall trend is undeniable, which is why all the denials sound so desperate and disingenuous.

That the consensus is Human added greenhouse gases is inferred.
The actual consensus studies state Human activity.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position
that humans are causing global warming.

Our atmosphere has warmed, an increase in the average temperature, but even how much it has warming is not in agreement.
Also if the warming were from added greenhouse gases disrupting the 15 um outbound radiation, it would be happening nearly everywhere.
Hansen's early work calculated that the response would vary by latitude, but would be nearly equal at both poles.
A few years ago I plotted the difference between his prediction, and the observed data.
The Arctic has warmed far more than the Antarctic, yet Hansen predicted they would be almost the same,
because the radiation from the ground is the same, and the CO2 level is the same. (Nearly everywhere on Earth emits 15 um radiation).
Hansen 1997

 

[NOLA Dude]

Power outages happen with or without wind energy. What's your point?

That one in Spain happened because of the reliance on wind and solar.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Oh, please. I've shown you the "overwhelming consensus" citations over and over. You always find some bullshit reason to object to them.

How did the entire scientific community all identically missed this increase in ice. How could they all get it so wrong identically?

 

[longview]

Yes it does; emissions, mainly from fossil fuels/greenhouse gases (CO2). Have you been living in a cave somewhere and didn't hear the news? I suggest you quick trying to split hairs and face facts. Here's a reminder of those facts...

Causes of climate change

The evidence is clear: climate change mainly cause by burning fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal, which release carbon dioxide and heat up the planet.

weather.metoffice.gov.uk

Causes and Effects of Climate Change | United Nations

www.un.org

Sorry, the facts are that added CO2 in theory could cause warming by reducing the outgoing longwave radiation.(OLR)
This perturbation, (Positive longwave energy imbalance) would force the Surface troposphere system to warm in response.
The problem is that between 2000 and 2024, all the added greenhouse gases including CO2 increased, but the OLR did not decrease.
In fact the OLR increased. This makes all of the climate simulations which have a forcing level hard coded in the input, invalid.

 

[jpn]

That the consensus is Human added greenhouse gases is inferred.
The actual consensus studies state Human activity.

Page 6: The CO2 level in 2019 was more than 40% higher than it was in the 19th century. Most of this CO2 increase has taken place since 1970, about the time when global energy consumption accelerated. Measured decreases in the fraction of other forms of carbon (the isotopes 14C and 13C) and a small decrease in atmospheric oxygen concentration (observations of which have been available since 1990) show that the rise in CO2 is largely from combustion of fossil fuels (which have low 13C fractions and no 14C). Deforestation and other land use changes have also released carbon from the biosphere (living world) where it normally resides for decades to centuries.

 

[longview]

That one in Spain happened because of the reliance on wind and solar.

Part of the problem is how the backup/peaking power plants are used.
Before we started adding non dispatchable sources to the grid, we had based load power plants,
and peaking power plant to take care of excessive load conditions.
As we added things like Wind and Solar, the role of the peaking power plants became more and more backup power plants,
that would come on when ether the sun did not shine or the wind did not blow.
This created a rare but possible single point of failure, a condition where we have peak demand, but the wind is not blowing.
The peaking power plant could supply energy for one event or the other, but not both at the same time.

 

[jpn]

How did the entire scientific community all identically missed this increase in ice. How could they all get it so wrong identically?

Does this mean the increase in global temperatures caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses is in error? At all? No, it doesn't.

Does it mean the Earth isn't heating up after all? No, it doesn't.

Does it mean the Earth isn't heating up as much as the data confirms that it is? No, it doesn't.

 

[longview]

Page 6: The CO2 level in 2019 was more than 40% higher than it was in the 19th century. Most of this CO2 increase has taken place since 1970, about the time when global energy consumption accelerated. Measured decreases in the fraction of other forms of carbon (the isotopes 14C and 13C) and a small decrease in atmospheric oxygen concentration (observations of which have been available since 1990) show that the rise in CO2 is largely from combustion of fossil fuels (which have low 13C fractions and no 14C). Deforestation and other land use changes have also released carbon from the biosphere (living world) where it normally resides for decades to centuries.

Um that just says that the increase in the CO2 level is caused by Human activity, not that the added CO2 causes warming!

 

[jpn]

Um that just says that the increase in the CO2 level is caused by Human activity, not that the added CO2 causes warming!

Um, the greenhouse effect has been a part of accepted science for going on two centuries now.

And this is where you start pretending deep understanding of the chemistry involved, and how you know something all the real experts don't know, or are ignoring, or have missed.

I won't participate in your tired, pathetic exhibit here because apparently you have no desire to have real experts examine and expose what are obviously the pretensions of a charlatan.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Does this mean the increase in global temperatures caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses is in error? At all? No, it doesn't.

Does it mean the Earth isn't heating up after all? No, it doesn't.

Does it mean the Earth isn't heating up as much as the data confirms that it is? No, it doesn't.

Let's try it again since you ignored the question:

How did the entire scientific community all identically missed this increase in ice. How could they all get it so wrong identically?

 

[longview]

Um, the greenhouse effect has been a part of accepted science for going on two centuries now.

And this is where you start pretending deep understanding of the chemistry involved, and how you know something all the real experts don't know, or are ignoring, or have missed.

I won't participate in your tired, pathetic exhibit here because apparently you have no desire to have real experts examine and expose what are obviously the pretensions of a charlatan.

I have a deep understanding of the quantum energy states of CO2, I understand what it is supposed to do.
The concept is plausible, except that it was just a hypothesis without any empirical data supporting the hypothesis.
The CERES instruments were the experiment, that would at last validate the hypothesis, but the experiment and the
hypothesis don't match.
From Richard Feynman

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong"