Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
My point isn't that you're wrong about everything or not smart enough. My point is that if I'm understanding what you're saying in the 1st post, that all ice melting will be equivalent to the earth receiving 2x more sunlight (extrapolated from Venus orbit comment), then I would expect the climate experts to be making those sorts of claims. I haven't seen such claims.
|
1) The Chcaltaya Glacier, in the Bolivian Andes Mountains began to melt in 1979.
2) By 2009, it was extinct.
3) This glacier had been there for 18,000-years.
4) Within 30-years, 18,000-years worth of ice vanished.
5) Consistent with astronomical climate forcing, Earth ought to be moving into the next Ice-Age.
6) Glaciers don't 'melt' in an 'ice-age.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) In order for the white powder snow which had covered Chcaltaya Glacier to absorb enough energy to absorb the same energy as the underlying ice, you would have had to move Earth to within 74-million miles of the Sun.
8) In order for the ice to absorb enough energy to match that of the exposed underlying rock, would require moving Earth to within 63-million miles of the Sun.
That's all I'm saying.
That's the entire premise of this thought experiment.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are what prompted the loss of the glacier.
Presently, we've lost 641- ice caps / glaciers to man-made global warming.
And it's accelerating. That's all I'm talking about.