Various techniques for combating global warming by reducing the amount of the sun's energy reaching the earth have been proposed, from huge space reflectors in orbit to stratospheric aerosols released in the upper atmosphere. A UK-backed plan to test the mechanics of inserting such aerosols, using a hosepipe attached to a giant balloon, was postponed in September and the so-called Spice projectwas criticised by scientists writing in Nature earlier this month.
These include reflecting the sun's rays back into space, making clouds whiter and seeding the ocean with minerals to absorb more CO2.
.........................aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you are all fucking nuts.
Various techniques for combating global warming by reducing the amount of the sun's energy reaching the earth have been proposed, from huge space reflectors in orbit to stratospheric aerosols released in the upper atmosphere. A UK-backed plan to test the mechanics of inserting such aerosols, using a hosepipe attached to a giant balloon, was postponed in September and the so-called Spice projectwas criticised by scientists writing in Nature earlier this month.
These include reflecting the sun's rays back into space, making clouds whiter and seeding the ocean with minerals to absorb more CO2.
.........................aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you are all fucking nuts.
no matter what happens, it better not be an idea from the super hippy uk morans, they buy this shit far too easily, then re-sell the bullshit to everyone they know
no matter what happens, it better not be an idea from the super hippy uk morans, they buy this shit far too easily, then re-sell the bullshit to everyone they know
[quote user=pablo420] [quote user=EdRoberts]Sadly, one cannot stop Mother Nature in her 12-thousand year trek to warm the planet... Doggerland [/quote]
You're an idiot. [/quote]
sorry, Ed has you on this one (unfortunately), we are still coming out of a mini-ice-age that occurred around 10k years ago.
yes, humans contribute to the warming, but we are a drop in the bucket, the earth would be warming if we were here or not.
pablo420 wrote:
EdRoberts wrote:
Sadly, one cannot stop Mother Nature in her 12-thousand year trek to warm the planet... Doggerland
You're an idiot.
sorry, Ed has you on this one (unfortunately), we are still coming out of a mini-ice-age that occurred around 10k years ago.
yes, humans contribute to the warming, but we are a drop in the bucket, the earth would be warming if we were here or not.
I'm pretty sure we would be cooling if we were not here. That has been the trend from every other ice-age, and has been the trend for the last 10,000 years.
You come out of the ice-age abruptly, then you slowly cool for the next 30,000 years or so, and stay that way for a hundred thousand. Of course, this is only about 5 degrees over a hundred thousand years...
The current warming is at a rate of about 2-5 degrees every hundred years. The Arctic hasn't been ice-free since the ice-ages even began, over a million years ago. It's a new age for the Earth.
I'm pretty sure we would be cooling if we were not here. That has been the trend from every other ice-age, and has been the trend for the last 10,000 years.
You come out of the ice-age abruptly, then you slowly cool for the next 30,000 years or so, and stay that way for a hundred thousand. Of course, this is only about 5 degrees over a hundred thousand years...
The current warming is at a rate of about 2-5 degrees every hundred years. The Arctic hasn't been ice-free since the ice-ages even began, over a million years ago. It's a new age for the Earth.
[quote user=pablo420] [quote user=EdRoberts]Sadly, one cannot stop Mother Nature in her 12-thousand year trek to warm the planet... Doggerland [/quote]
You're an idiot. [/quote]
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
pablo420 wrote:
EdRoberts wrote:
Sadly, one cannot stop Mother Nature in her 12-thousand year trek to warm the planet... Doggerland
You're an idiot.
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
[quote user=EricManning] I'm pretty sure we would be cooling if we were not here. That has been the trend from every other ice-age, and has been the trend for the last 10,000 years.
You come out of the ice-age abruptly, then you slowly cool for the next 30,000 years or so, and stay that way for a hundred thousand. Of course, this is only about 5 degrees over a hundred thousand years...
The current warming is at a rate of about 2-5 degrees every hundred years. The Arctic hasn't been ice-free since the ice-ages even began, over a million years ago. It's a new age for the Earth. [/quote]
[quote]The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the 19th century or early in the 20th century.[/quote]
we are still warming up from it
EricManning wrote:
I'm pretty sure we would be cooling if we were not here. That has been the trend from every other ice-age, and has been the trend for the last 10,000 years.
You come out of the ice-age abruptly, then you slowly cool for the next 30,000 years or so, and stay that way for a hundred thousand. Of course, this is only about 5 degrees over a hundred thousand years...
The current warming is at a rate of about 2-5 degrees every hundred years. The Arctic hasn't been ice-free since the ice-ages even began, over a million years ago. It's a new age for the Earth.
wrote:
The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the 19th century or early in the 20th century.
[quote user=EdRoberts] [quote user=pablo420]You're an idiot.[/quote]
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot? [/quote]
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
EdRoberts wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
You're an idiot.
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
[quote user=pablo420] [quote user=EdRoberts]'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot? [/quote]
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it? [/quote]
GAMERA!
pablo420 wrote:
EdRoberts wrote:
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
[quote user=pablo420] [quote user=EdRoberts]'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?[/quote]
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it? [/quote]
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
Doggerland is scientific proof that the fucking sea level has risen 400 feet - over 10-12,000 years, and, since the sea rise was not (we strongly assume) caused by primitive man driving his Mercedes...but rather by 'natural' warming, it is therefore PROOF that the warming (and cooling) of the earth is CYCLICAL. Sooooo, get your head out of your ass, and fight back against the brain-washing you have been subjected to in your schooling. Just sayin'; no offense.
@ Pablo: - -
Doggerland is scientific proof that the fucking sea level has risen 400 feet - over 10-12,000 years, and, since the sea rise was not (we strongly assume) caused by primitive man driving his Mercedes...but rather by 'natural' warming, it is therefore PROOF that the warming (and cooling) of the earth is CYCLICAL. Sooooo, get your head out of your ass, and fight back against the brain-washing you have been subjected to in your schooling. Just sayin'; no offense.
I still don't believe in it. The glaciers are melting in the arctic, but glaciers are getting bigger in russia. I would say people should pay more attention to tilt theory instead of dismissing it in favor of theoretical explanations. I still believe 'global warming' is cyclical, just has it has been since the Earth cooled down millions of years ago. That hasn't changed, nor will it ever, and cannot be argued according to climatic history. Tilt theory works into my beliefs perfectly.
I still don't believe in it. The glaciers are melting in the arctic, but glaciers are getting bigger in russia. I would say people should pay more attention to tilt theory instead of dismissing it in favor of theoretical explanations. I still believe 'global warming' is cyclical, just has it has been since the Earth cooled down millions of years ago. That hasn't changed, nor will it ever, and cannot be argued according to climatic history. Tilt theory works into my beliefs perfectly.
^ No, Doggerland is just ridiculous proof of nothing; an old argument that has been tried and failed time and again. You're obviously just trolling, you know this is true or you wouldn't bring it up every time a climate change thread arises.
^ No, Doggerland is just ridiculous proof of nothing; an old argument that has been tried and failed time and again. You're obviously just trolling, you know this is true or you wouldn't bring it up every time a climate change thread arises.
^ He's conveniently left out parts of the storegga landslide and britannia/russian glaciers creating a north sea dam directly in flow path of 'doggerland' that collapsed, which is now being hypothesized to be the actual reason the land mass connecting europe to britain disappeared so rapidly. One can ask why the sea levels and geological erosion were so much different than anywhere else in the world at that time, but that wouldn't make sense, right? It doesn't matter that water levels rose higher in that specific area for a marked amount of time than anywhere else in the world. It doesn't matter that there is clear evidence of an extreme pressure event (that could not occur if it was indeed simple glacial melt, that takes 10's of thousands of years and wouldn't leave explosive striations) in the silt of what was once 'doggerland'. Atleast it doesn't matter to him, anyways.
What is doggerland? His bait for trolling, that's what it is. That's all it ever should be.
^ He's conveniently left out parts of the storegga landslide and britannia/russian glaciers creating a north sea dam directly in flow path of 'doggerland' that collapsed, which is now being hypothesized to be the actual reason the land mass connecting europe to britain disappeared so rapidly. One can ask why the sea levels and geological erosion were so much different than anywhere else in the world at that time, but that wouldn't make sense, right? It doesn't matter that water levels rose higher in that specific area for a marked amount of time than anywhere else in the world. It doesn't matter that there is clear evidence of an extreme pressure event (that could not occur if it was indeed simple glacial melt, that takes 10's of thousands of years and wouldn't leave explosive striations) in the silt of what was once 'doggerland'. Atleast it doesn't matter to him, anyways.
What is doggerland? His bait for trolling, that's what it is. That's all it ever should be.
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it? [/quote]
pablo420 wrote:
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?[/quote]
[/quote]
The exact same forces that have driven it for hundred of millions of years since the planet cooled off and took it's place among the solar system. Glaciers melt, cold, desalinated water gets forced down main streams feeding the oceans, oceans get colder, planet cools down, glaciers refreeze, oceans warm up, temperature stabilizes, wash, rinse, repeat. There are other variables that can affect early freeze/melt, such as planetary tilt (the true north pole is always moving, extremely slowly, but moving, just guess where it is heading....), and considering everything is warming up as expected and glaciers are getting even bigger in russia, would prove that tilt theory and natural climate change are working hand in hand in today's "crisis" that is really just a natural part of the entire cycle.
Sure, I don't deny humans haven't affected it a bit, but considering the earth can swallow up more than enough co2 than we could ever put out, I'd say it's next to negligible compared to what the mainstream media would like to blow it up to be and what everyone is believing.
pablo420 wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
The exact same forces that have driven it for hundred of millions of years since the planet cooled off and took it's place among the solar system. Glaciers melt, cold, desalinated water gets forced down main streams feeding the oceans, oceans get colder, planet cools down, glaciers refreeze, oceans warm up, temperature stabilizes, wash, rinse, repeat. There are other variables that can affect early freeze/melt, such as planetary tilt (the true north pole is always moving, extremely slowly, but moving, just guess where it is heading....), and considering everything is warming up as expected and glaciers are getting even bigger in russia, would prove that tilt theory and natural climate change are working hand in hand in today's "crisis" that is really just a natural part of the entire cycle.
Sure, I don't deny humans haven't affected it a bit, but considering the earth can swallow up more than enough co2 than we could ever put out, I'd say it's next to negligible compared to what the mainstream media would like to blow it up to be and what everyone is believing.
^There's no such thing as "tilt theory". You just made that shit up. I can only assume you're referring to the Milankovich cycle, which has us in the middle of a cooling trend right now and can't possibly account for the rapid increase in temperatures.
The fact is, to discount the theory of anthropogenic global warming you not only have to come up with an entirely new mechanism for explaining it, you also have to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2isn't causing the warming that 200 years of irrefutable science says it should be.
^There's no such thing as "tilt theory". You just made that shit up. I can only assume you're referring to the Milankovich cycle, which has us in the middle of a cooling trend right now and can't possibly account for the rapid increase in temperatures.
The fact is, to discount the theory of anthropogenic global warming you not only have to come up with an entirely new mechanism for explaining it, you also have to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2isn't causing the warming that 200 years of irrefutable science says it should be.
[quote user=pablo420] ^There's no such thing as "tilt theory". You just made that shit up. I can only assume you're referring to the Milankovich cycle, which has us in the middle of a cooling trend right now and can't possibly account for the rapid increase in temperatures.
The fact is, to discount the theory of anthropogenic global warming you not only have to come up with an entirely new mechanism for explaining it, you also have to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2isn't causing the warming that 200 years of irrefutable science says it should be. [/quote]
No, i'm actually talking about the earth tilting on it's polar rotational axises, and the fact that the true north is heading towards russia proves that unrefutably. Poles don't just move on their own without the entire planet moving with it, and the planet can't spin off kilter from it's axis. We're tilting, and it's not a cycle, it's an active progression that has gone on since the planet was created and it will never stop. The sahara desert was created because of this, monsoons that kept it lush moved south because axial tilt was actively changing.
Like I said, the Russian glacier growth is happening because of this, and you can't refute because it's happening in plain sight. By global warming logic, those glaciers should be melting, not building mass.
pablo420 wrote:
^There's no such thing as "tilt theory". You just made that shit up. I can only assume you're referring to the Milankovich cycle, which has us in the middle of a cooling trend right now and can't possibly account for the rapid increase in temperatures.
The fact is, to discount the theory of anthropogenic global warming you not only have to come up with an entirely new mechanism for explaining it, you also have to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2isn't causing the warming that 200 years of irrefutable science says it should be.
No, i'm actually talking about the earth tilting on it's polar rotational axises, and the fact that the true north is heading towards russia proves that unrefutably. Poles don't just move on their own without the entire planet moving with it, and the planet can't spin off kilter from it's axis. We're tilting, and it's not a cycle, it's an active progression that has gone on since the planet was created and it will never stop. The sahara desert was created because of this, monsoons that kept it lush moved south because axial tilt was actively changing.
Like I said, the Russian glacier growth is happening because of this, and you can't refute because it's happening in plain sight. By global warming logic, those glaciers should be melting, not building mass.
Milankovitch cycle (which has been proven through ocean core research, btw) agrees that it is an ongoing procession that won't stop and cannot be altered. Again, the north pole is moving towards russia. The earth is tilting. You cannot deny that. Again, the poles cannot change location without the entire planet moving with it, and it's been doing it since the beginning of "time" on earth. This explains why the glaciers are building up in russia and melting in the arctic circle. Can you address that and explain how glaciers are gaining mass when the *theory* you subscribe to says they should be losing them?
Milankovitch cycle (which has been proven through ocean core research, btw) agrees that it is an ongoing procession that won't stop and cannot be altered. Again, the north pole is moving towards russia. The earth is tilting. You cannot deny that. Again, the poles cannot change location without the entire planet moving with it, and it's been doing it since the beginning of "time" on earth. This explains why the glaciers are building up in russia and melting in the arctic circle. Can you address that and explain how glaciers are gaining mass when the *theory* you subscribe to says they should be losing them?
[quote user=proofinlife] No, i'm actually talking about the earth tilting on it's polar rotational axises, and the fact that the true north is heading towards russia proves that unrefutably. [/quote]
proofinlife wrote:
No, i'm actually talking about the earth tilting on it's polar rotational axises, and the fact that the true north is heading towards russia proves that unrefutably.
Come on pabs, waiting on you. If you're gone to bed, I'm gone too. I'd like to see your take on Russia's glacial mass gain. Maybe you're still googling for the debate lol
Come on pabs, waiting on you. If you're gone to bed, I'm gone too. I'd like to see your take on Russia's glacial mass gain. Maybe you're still googling for the debate lol
Bed? It's ten to eight in the morning and I'm at work.
[quote user=proofinlife]This explains why the glaciers are building up in russia and melting in the arctic circle. [/quote]
No doesn't.
[quote user=proofinlife] Can you address that and explain how glaciers are gaining mass when the *theory* you subscribe to says they should be losing them? [/quote]
What *theory* (your typical tin-foiler misinterpretation of the meaning of scientific theory notwithstanding) says that Russian glaciers should be shrinking? I must have missed that paper. Global average temperatures are rising. Isolating regional anomalies does not undermine AGW. It's called cherry picking.
I already explained that the Milankovich cycle can't account for the current warming. Decades of peer reviewed research backs that up. Apparently your *theory* of climate change rests on some magical force causing glacial build up and decline.
Global average temperatures are rising. The fact that the Troposphere is warming whilst the Stratosphere is cooling proves that the cause of the warming is an increase in the severity of the Greenhouse effect. Nothing else can explain this phenomena.
Bed? It's ten to eight in the morning and I'm at work.
proofinlife wrote:
This explains why the glaciers are building up in russia and melting in the arctic circle.
No doesn't.
proofinlife wrote:
Can you address that and explain how glaciers are gaining mass when the *theory* you subscribe to says they should be losing them?
What *theory* (your typical tin-foiler misinterpretation of the meaning of scientific theory notwithstanding) says that Russian glaciers should be shrinking? I must have missed that paper. Global average temperatures are rising. Isolating regional anomalies does not undermine AGW. It's called cherry picking.
I already explained that the Milankovich cycle can't account for the current warming. Decades of peer reviewed research backs that up. Apparently your *theory* of climate change rests on some magical force causing glacial build up and decline.
Global average temperatures are rising. The fact that the Troposphere is warming whilst the Stratosphere is cooling proves that the cause of the warming is an increase in the severity of the Greenhouse effect. Nothing else can explain this phenomena.
^ Christ man, I never said milankovitch was the SOLE REASON for global warming. Please, show me where I said that. If you read ALL of my posts on the matter, you would see that I am saying the current crisis everyone is pissing their pants over is really nothing more than a culmination of seperate (yet entwined) natural events that were going to happen sooner or later; as I said, a cycle. In clear text for you, I said milankovitch cycle is responsible for the arctic glacial melt and russian glacial gain. That's all. I explained that the natural global warming cycle that irrefutably happens and has happened since the earth cooled down (you cannot deny that, and please don't try, that's like saying ice ages never happened) has probably alot more to do with global warming than you're giving credit. You're simply passing off the entire buck on pollution, which I personally don't buy one bit.
Quit sidestepping, and explain why russian glaciers are gaining mass, western yukon is experiencing the COLDEST and EARLIEST winter it's seen in decades, your global warming theory doesn't explain that, in fact they go against it clearly right in it's face. The glaciers should be melting and yukon should be having warmer weather than normal. You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic. It's not cherry picking, it's showing you that global average temperatures ARE NOT rising across the board, and there is some phenomena you and your selected schools of thought are completely missing. This is why I am asking you to show HOW the glaciers are gaining mass when the temperature should be warmer and the glaciers should be melting, according to everything you're saying. This "regional anomaly" you speak of just happens to be covering the entire northern hemisphere between Arctic Canada and West Russia, the exact area that is under huge international watch because of the glacial melt in the arctic..... that's a HUGE anomaly.
You're talking to me like I am completely refuting the greenhouse pollution theory. I'm not. I simply think there are other forces at work alongside it such as natural climatic cycles that just happen to be taking effect at the same time everyone is shitting their pants over greenhouse gases. Keeping an open mind tends to help.
Oh, and drop the insults. It's showing you're uneasy even with your own explanation. "Tin-Foiler" is generally reserved for conspiracy theorists, and I am not explaining any conspiracy in the least bit. I am not otester, let's get that clear. If this is all it takes for you to turn a good debate into a name calling fest, I'd recommend taking a look at your securities, or should I say insecurities.
^ Christ man, I never said milankovitch was the SOLE REASON for global warming. Please, show me where I said that. If you read ALL of my posts on the matter, you would see that I am saying the current crisis everyone is pissing their pants over is really nothing more than a culmination of seperate (yet entwined) natural events that were going to happen sooner or later; as I said, a cycle. In clear text for you, I said milankovitch cycle is responsible for the arctic glacial melt and russian glacial gain. That's all. I explained that the natural global warming cycle that irrefutably happens and has happened since the earth cooled down (you cannot deny that, and please don't try, that's like saying ice ages never happened) has probably alot more to do with global warming than you're giving credit. You're simply passing off the entire buck on pollution, which I personally don't buy one bit.
Quit sidestepping, and explain why russian glaciers are gaining mass, western yukon is experiencing the COLDEST and EARLIEST winter it's seen in decades, your global warming theory doesn't explain that, in fact they go against it clearly right in it's face. The glaciers should be melting and yukon should be having warmer weather than normal. You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic. It's not cherry picking, it's showing you that global average temperatures ARE NOT rising across the board, and there is some phenomena you and your selected schools of thought are completely missing. This is why I am asking you to show HOW the glaciers are gaining mass when the temperature should be warmer and the glaciers should be melting, according to everything you're saying. This "regional anomaly" you speak of just happens to be covering the entire northern hemisphere between Arctic Canada and West Russia, the exact area that is under huge international watch because of the glacial melt in the arctic..... that's a HUGE anomaly.
You're talking to me like I am completely refuting the greenhouse pollution theory. I'm not. I simply think there are other forces at work alongside it such as natural climatic cycles that just happen to be taking effect at the same time everyone is shitting their pants over greenhouse gases. Keeping an open mind tends to help.
Oh, and drop the insults. It's showing you're uneasy even with your own explanation. "Tin-Foiler" is generally reserved for conspiracy theorists, and I am not explaining any conspiracy in the least bit. I am not otester, let's get that clear. If this is all it takes for you to turn a good debate into a name calling fest, I'd recommend taking a look at your securities, or should I say insecurities.
I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
[quote user=proofinlife]
You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic.
[/quote]
Maybe he meant MEAN temp? semantics..or that the global average temperature not global average temperatures are rising. pedantic
[quote user=proofinlife]Oh, and drop the insults. It's showing you're uneasy even with your own explanation. [/quote]
this i agree with.
proofinlife wrote:
russian glaciers are gaining mass,
I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
proofinlife wrote:
You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic.
Maybe he meant MEAN temp? semantics..or that the global average temperature not global average temperatures are rising. pedantic
proofinlife wrote:
Oh, and drop the insults. It's showing you're uneasy even with your own explanation.
I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
[/quote]
Also adding in links to Asian Glaciers following the same trend. It just so happens that these glaciers are on the same longitudinal average that Russia's are on, and if axial tilt is correct, would make sense why the entire "hot spot" is shifting west; these spots in the arctic are receiving more exposure to the sun and less insulation, whereas Russia's and China's are starting to face away from the sun.
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
Link to Ice Age Explanation, page text search for "Tilt", it's not exactly wikipedia, but it explains it pretty clearly :
I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
Also adding in links to Asian Glaciers following the same trend. It just so happens that these glaciers are on the same longitudinal average that Russia's are on, and if axial tilt is correct, would make sense why the entire "hot spot" is shifting west; these spots in the arctic are receiving more exposure to the sun and less insulation, whereas Russia's and China's are starting to face away from the sun.
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
Link to Ice Age Explanation, page text search for "Tilt", it's not exactly wikipedia, but it explains it pretty clearly :
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
"In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."
proofinlife wrote:
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
"In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."
^ Christ man, I never said milankovitch was the SOLE REASON for global warming. Please, show me where I said that. [/quote]
I never said that you said that.
[quote user=proofinlife] If you read ALL of my posts on the matter, you would see that I am saying the current crisis everyone is pissing their pants over is really nothing more than a culmination of seperate (yet entwined) natural events that were going to happen sooner or later; as I said, a cycle. [/quote]
Seperate, yet entwined?
[quote user=proofinlife] In clear text for you, I said milankovitch cycle is responsible for the arctic glacial melt and russian glacial gain. That's all. [/quote]
Perhaps you can point me towards the peer reviewed study that confirms this?
[quote user=proofinlife] I explained that the natural global warming cycle that irrefutably happens and has happened since the earth cooled down (you cannot deny that, and please don't try, that's like saying ice ages never happened)has probably alot more to do with global warming than you're giving credit. [/quote]
And now you're adopting Ed's strawman argument. Stop it. Like I already stated earlier, the current warming cannot be explained by any natural phenomena such as the Malankovich cycle because a)It's out of sync (we should in fact, be experiencing a long term cooling trend and b)The warming is occuring far too rapidly.
[quote user=proofinlife] You're simply passing off the entire buck on pollution, which I personally don't buy one bit. [/quote]
No. I'm siding with the scientific consensus. You can choose to buy whatever voodoo nonsense you like.
[quote user=proofinlife] Quit sidestepping, and explain why russian glaciers are gaining mass, western yukon is experiencing the COLDEST and EARLIEST winter it's seen in decades, your global warming theory doesn't explain that, in fact they go against it clearly right in it's face. The glaciers should be melting and yukon should be having warmer weather than normal. You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic. It's not cherry picking, it's showing you that global average temperatures ARE NOT rising across the board, and there is some phenomena you and your selected schools of thought are completely missing. This is why I am asking you to show HOW the glaciers are gaining mass when the temperature should be warmer and the glaciers should be melting, according to everything you're saying. This "regional anomaly" you speak of just happens to be covering the entire northern hemisphere between Arctic Canada and West Russia, the exact area that is under huge international watch because of the glacial melt in the arctic..... that's a HUGE anomaly. [/quote]
You don't seem to understand. Nobody has ever said that climate change (natural or anthropogenic) occurs in a predictable, uniform fashion. Far from it. We knew that anthropogenic global warming would be most pronounced at the poles (it has been) and that the increased greenhouse effedt would cause warming of the Troposphere and cooling of the Stratosphere (which it has). The effect on weather patterns and regional climates is far harder to predict. I read somewhere (can't remember else I'd post a link) that increased winter snow due to these changes could account for some extra glacial mass.
The point is, you're cherry picking again. You can't base your argument on what's happening in any particular part of the world. The global average temperature has risen and continues to rise. The majority of the worlds glaciers are in retreat. These are the facts.
[quote user=proofinlife] You're talking to me like I am completely refuting the greenhouse pollution theory. I'm not. I simply think there are other forces at work alongside it such as natural climatic cycles that just happen to be taking effect at the same time everyone is shitting their pants over greenhouse gases. Keeping an open mind tends to help. [/quote]
There is no debate on this in the scientific community because this argument was settled two decades ago. Human emissions ARE the number one cause of the current climate change.
[quote user=proofinlife] Oh, and drop the insults. It's showing you're uneasy even with your own explanation. "Tin-Foiler" is generally reserved for conspiracy theorists, and I am not explaining any conspiracy in the least bit. I am not otester, let's get that clear. If this is all it takes for you to turn a good debate into a name calling fest, I'd recommend taking a look at your securities, or should I say insecurities. [/quote]
Actually, in a way you're worse than otester. While he believes that all of the worlds scientific institutions are engaged in massive, implausible conspiracy, you simply believe that they're wrong and that you know better, based apparently on gut instinct. You see, there's a stong difference between the rigorous application of the scientific method and internet based conjecture. One of them puts robotic SUVs on the surface of Mars, the other just keeps James Delingpole in a job.
proofinlife wrote:
^ Christ man, I never said milankovitch was the SOLE REASON for global warming. Please, show me where I said that.
I never said that you said that.
proofinlife wrote:
If you read ALL of my posts on the matter, you would see that I am saying the current crisis everyone is pissing their pants over is really nothing more than a culmination of seperate (yet entwined) natural events that were going to happen sooner or later; as I said, a cycle.
Seperate, yet entwined?
proofinlife wrote:
In clear text for you, I said milankovitch cycle is responsible for the arctic glacial melt and russian glacial gain. That's all.
Perhaps you can point me towards the peer reviewed study that confirms this?
proofinlife wrote:
I explained that the natural global warming cycle that irrefutably happens and has happened since the earth cooled down (you cannot deny that, and please don't try, that's like saying ice ages never happened)has probably alot more to do with global warming than you're giving credit.
And now you're adopting Ed's strawman argument. Stop it. Like I already stated earlier, the current warming cannot be explained by any natural phenomena such as the Malankovich cycle because a)It's out of sync (we should in fact, be experiencing a long term cooling trend and b)The warming is occuring far too rapidly.
proofinlife wrote:
You're simply passing off the entire buck on pollution, which I personally don't buy one bit.
No. I'm siding with the scientific consensus. You can choose to buy whatever voodoo nonsense you like.
proofinlife wrote:
Quit sidestepping, and explain why russian glaciers are gaining mass, western yukon is experiencing the COLDEST and EARLIEST winter it's seen in decades, your global warming theory doesn't explain that, in fact they go against it clearly right in it's face. The glaciers should be melting and yukon should be having warmer weather than normal. You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic. It's not cherry picking, it's showing you that global average temperatures ARE NOT rising across the board, and there is some phenomena you and your selected schools of thought are completely missing. This is why I am asking you to show HOW the glaciers are gaining mass when the temperature should be warmer and the glaciers should be melting, according to everything you're saying. This "regional anomaly" you speak of just happens to be covering the entire northern hemisphere between Arctic Canada and West Russia, the exact area that is under huge international watch because of the glacial melt in the arctic..... that's a HUGE anomaly.
You don't seem to understand. Nobody has ever said that climate change (natural or anthropogenic) occurs in a predictable, uniform fashion. Far from it. We knew that anthropogenic global warming would be most pronounced at the poles (it has been) and that the increased greenhouse effedt would cause warming of the Troposphere and cooling of the Stratosphere (which it has). The effect on weather patterns and regional climates is far harder to predict. I read somewhere (can't remember else I'd post a link) that increased winter snow due to these changes could account for some extra glacial mass.
The point is, you're cherry picking again. You can't base your argument on what's happening in any particular part of the world. The global average temperature has risen and continues to rise. The majority of the worlds glaciers are in retreat. These are the facts.
proofinlife wrote:
You're talking to me like I am completely refuting the greenhouse pollution theory. I'm not. I simply think there are other forces at work alongside it such as natural climatic cycles that just happen to be taking effect at the same time everyone is shitting their pants over greenhouse gases. Keeping an open mind tends to help.
There is no debate on this in the scientific community because this argument was settled two decades ago. Human emissions ARE the number one cause of the current climate change.
proofinlife wrote:
Oh, and drop the insults. It's showing you're uneasy even with your own explanation. "Tin-Foiler" is generally reserved for conspiracy theorists, and I am not explaining any conspiracy in the least bit. I am not otester, let's get that clear. If this is all it takes for you to turn a good debate into a name calling fest, I'd recommend taking a look at your securities, or should I say insecurities.
Actually, in a way you're worse than otester. While he believes that all of the worlds scientific institutions are engaged in massive, implausible conspiracy, you simply believe that they're wrong and that you know better, based apparently on gut instinct. You see, there's a stong difference between the rigorous application of the scientific method and internet based conjecture. One of them puts robotic SUVs on the surface of Mars, the other just keeps James Delingpole in a job.
I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
[/quote]
Also adding in links to Asian Glaciers following the same trend. It just so happens that these glaciers are on the same longitudinal average that Russia's are on, and if axial tilt is correct, would make sense why the entire "hot spot" is shifting west; these spots in the arctic are receiving more exposure to the sun and less insulation, whereas Russia's and China's are starting to face away from the sun.
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
Link to Ice Age Explanation, page text search for "Tilt", it's not exactly wikipedia, but it explains it pretty clearly :
I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
Also adding in links to Asian Glaciers following the same trend. It just so happens that these glaciers are on the same longitudinal average that Russia's are on, and if axial tilt is correct, would make sense why the entire "hot spot" is shifting west; these spots in the arctic are receiving more exposure to the sun and less insulation, whereas Russia's and China's are starting to face away from the sun.
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
Link to Ice Age Explanation, page text search for "Tilt", it's not exactly wikipedia, but it explains it pretty clearly :
^ Those are just examples, pabs. There are hundreds of websites on the topic for both Korakoram Glaciers and the Himalayan Glaciers. I just took one of the many available.
But then again, this isn't about where I get my sources from, this is about you disproving my theory and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say. In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory.
So, quit being petty, quit trying to nit pick at little fucking things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and fucking debate. This isn't a "who can nit pick completely irrelevant bullshit" contest.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]
[quote user=proofinlife]
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
"In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those." [/quote]
See, pabs, you need to take examples from digi here. This is all i'm asking for from you, not your nitpicking pedantic bullshit.
@Digi, the problem with those links you provided, is that they are saying the glaciers are staying the same because the area is unaffected by the current Global temperature rise. They fail to explain why they are gaining mass. That is what this is all about.
Secondly, they don't explain why Yukon and East Russia are experiencing the coldest weather they have in nearly a century for the past two years, according to the postulation in that link, it should be staying the average it has been, not getting far colder and earlier winters and longer nights.
^ Those are just examples, pabs. There are hundreds of websites on the topic for both Korakoram Glaciers and the Himalayan Glaciers. I just took one of the many available.
But then again, this isn't about where I get my sources from, this is about you disproving my theory and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say. In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory.
So, quit being petty, quit trying to nit pick at little fucking things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and fucking debate. This isn't a "who can nit pick completely irrelevant bullshit" contest.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
"In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."
See, pabs, you need to take examples from digi here. This is all i'm asking for from you, not your nitpicking pedantic bullshit.
@Digi, the problem with those links you provided, is that they are saying the glaciers are staying the same because the area is unaffected by the current Global temperature rise. They fail to explain why they are gaining mass. That is what this is all about.
Secondly, they don't explain why Yukon and East Russia are experiencing the coldest weather they have in nearly a century for the past two years, according to the postulation in that link, it should be staying the average it has been, not getting far colder and earlier winters and longer nights.
^ Those are just examples, pabs. There are hundreds of websites on the topic for both Korakoram Glaciers and the Himalayan Glaciers. I just took one of the many available.
But then again, this isn't about where I get my sources from, this is about you disproving my theory and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say. In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory.
So, quit being petty, quit trying to nit pick at little fucking things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and fucking debate. This isn't a "who can nit pick completely irrelevant bullshit" contest.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]The report authors don't think so:
"In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."
[/quote]
See, pabs, you need to take examples from digi here. This is all i'm asking for from you, not your nitpicking pedantic bullshit.
@Digi, the problem with those links you provided, is that they are saying the glaciers are staying the same because the area is unaffected by the current Global temperature rise. They fail to explain why they are gaining mass. That is what this is all about.
Secondly, they don't explain why Yukon and East Russia are experiencing the coldest weatherthey have in nearly a century for the past two years, according to the postulation in that link, it should be staying the average it has been, not getting far colder and earlier winters and longer nights.
[/quote]
The links I provided, proof, were quotes from the researchers who published the articles you cited, relating to the study you're citing as evidence for your global tilt theory. It really isn't my problem if you have decided to extrapolate beyond their findings or the remit of their research.
Did you read the research paper your articles cite?
proofinlife wrote:
^ Those are just examples, pabs. There are hundreds of websites on the topic for both Korakoram Glaciers and the Himalayan Glaciers. I just took one of the many available.
But then again, this isn't about where I get my sources from, this is about you disproving my theory and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say. In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory.
So, quit being petty, quit trying to nit pick at little fucking things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and fucking debate. This isn't a "who can nit pick completely irrelevant bullshit" contest.
"In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."
See, pabs, you need to take examples from digi here. This is all i'm asking for from you, not your nitpicking pedantic bullshit.
@Digi, the problem with those links you provided, is that they are saying the glaciers are staying the same because the area is unaffected by the current Global temperature rise. They fail to explain why they are gaining mass. That is what this is all about.
Secondly, they don't explain why Yukon and East Russia are experiencing the coldest weatherthey have in nearly a century for the past two years, according to the postulation in that link, it should be staying the average it has been, not getting far colder and earlier winters and longer nights.
The links I provided, proof, were quotes from the researchers who published the articles you cited, relating to the study you're citing as evidence for your global tilt theory. It really isn't my problem if you have decided to extrapolate beyond their findings or the remit of their research.
Did you read the research paper your articles cite?
[quote user=proofinlife]this is about you disproving my theory [/quote]
You don't have a theory. You have half arsed conjecture.
[quote user=proofinlife] and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say. [/quote]
I didn't say they were melting because global average temperature is rising. Are you saying global average temperature is not rising?
[quote user=proofinlife] In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory. [/quote]
What delusional nonsense is that? It's pointless to continue in a debate in which you've already established the terms of victory around such alice in wonderland rules. I already explained that isolated glacial growth and regional cold spells do not undermine the overall picture of warmer global average temperature and glacial retreat. I am not nit-picking. You are cherry picking.
[quote user=proofinlife] Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening [/quote]
This statement alone undermines your entire argument. Back to the drawing board with you.
proofinlife wrote:
this is about you disproving my theory
You don't have a theory. You have half arsed conjecture.
proofinlife wrote:
and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say.
I didn't say they were melting because global average temperature is rising. Are you saying global average temperature is not rising?
proofinlife wrote:
In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory.
What delusional nonsense is that? It's pointless to continue in a debate in which you've already established the terms of victory around such alice in wonderland rules. I already explained that isolated glacial growth and regional cold spells do not undermine the overall picture of warmer global average temperature and glacial retreat. I am not nit-picking. You are cherry picking.
proofinlife wrote:
Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening
This statement alone undermines your entire argument. Back to the drawing board with you.
@ Digi : Yes, I read what you cited. And it seems to go against what Gardelle officially noted in her own findings. Your links are saying that the glaciers are remaining unaffected, their original findings were showing that they are gaining mass. I haven't extrapolated anything that they haven't already officially noted. They are putting on mass, and by current theory of global warming here on TAN, they should be losing it.
That quote you posted from Gardelle was from 2008, before she went on record recently saying that korakoram are gaining mass. Even back in 2008, she vividly stated that the Himilayan's were gaining mass.
And even so, if they weren't gaining mass, your links quote her as saying it's remaining stable. By current TAN global warming theory, they should be melting, lending credence to my argument once more.
Why bold that? Are you insinuating that I don't think global warming is occurring? I've said it many times, and I don't know how many more I have to say it, but I don't doubt it, but I also think there are more cyclical forces at work here that without them, would not be occurring as we are seeing it.
Everything I'm saying only ADDS credence to global warming warming theory, because it illustrates quite clearly that our effect on the natural cycle of the earth is speeding some things up that shouldn't be happening for thousands of years. But, i don't think global warming is 100% wholly responsible for everything that is going on, that's just a ridiculous line of thought.
@ Pabs:
How did that last statement undermine what I'm saying? Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
I'll make it clear for you guys.
I am not saying in any way shape or form global warming is not occuring. I am saying that the reason the northern hemisphere around Russia and Yukon just happens to be moving, thus cooling the area down and lending ice mass.
So both of you can quit trying to twist everything I've said into something else. This is about me saying how natural cycles of events have a lot more to do with global warming than either of you will admit. You're simply passing the buck off on man-manipulated weather. I personally don't believe that one bit, it's lazy.
@ Digi : Yes, I read what you cited. And it seems to go against what Gardelle officially noted in her own findings. Your links are saying that the glaciers are remaining unaffected, their original findings were showing that they are gaining mass. I haven't extrapolated anything that they haven't already officially noted. They are putting on mass, and by current theory of global warming here on TAN, they should be losing it.
That quote you posted from Gardelle was from 2008, before she went on record recently saying that korakoram are gaining mass. Even back in 2008, she vividly stated that the Himilayan's were gaining mass.
And even so, if they weren't gaining mass, your links quote her as saying it's remaining stable. By current TAN global warming theory, they should be melting, lending credence to my argument once more.
Why bold that? Are you insinuating that I don't think global warming is occurring? I've said it many times, and I don't know how many more I have to say it, but I don't doubt it, but I also think there are more cyclical forces at work here that without them, would not be occurring as we are seeing it.
Everything I'm saying only ADDS credence to global warming warming theory, because it illustrates quite clearly that our effect on the natural cycle of the earth is speeding some things up that shouldn't be happening for thousands of years. But, i don't think global warming is 100% wholly responsible for everything that is going on, that's just a ridiculous line of thought.
@ Pabs:
How did that last statement undermine what I'm saying? Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
I'll make it clear for you guys.
I am not saying in any way shape or form global warming is not occuring. I am saying that the reason the northern hemisphere around Russia and Yukon just happens to be moving, thus cooling the area down and lending ice mass.
So both of you can quit trying to twist everything I've said into something else. This is about me saying how natural cycles of events have a lot more to do with global warming than either of you will admit. You're simply passing the buck off on man-manipulated weather. I personally don't believe that one bit, it's lazy.
[quote user=proofinlife] ^ Yes, I read what you cited. And it seems to go against what Gardelle officially noted in her own findings. Your links are saying that the glaciers are remaining unaffected, their original findings were showing that they are gaining mass. I haven't extrapolated anything that they haven't already officially noted. They are putting on mass, and by current theory of global warming here on TAN, they should be losing it.
That quote you posted from Gardelle was from 2008, before she went on record recently saying that korakoram are gaining mass. Even back in 2008, she vividly stated that the Himilayan's were gaining mass.
Why bold that? Are you insinuating that I don't think global warming is occurring? I've said it many times, and I don't know how many more I have to say it, but I don't doubt it, but I also think there are more cyclical forces at work here that without them, would not be occurring as we are seeing it.
Everything I'm saying only ADDS credence to global warming warming theory, because it illustrates quite clearly that our effect on the natural cycle of the earth is speeding some things up that shouldn't be happening for thousands of years. But, i don't think global warming is 100% wholly responsible for everything that is going on, that's just a ridiculous line of thought. [/quote]
So, you've read Gardelle's research paper?
The text was placed in bold because you said of the paper cited "but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory". Gardelle disagrees with your analysis, and the quote is from 2012.
proofinlife wrote:
^ Yes, I read what you cited. And it seems to go against what Gardelle officially noted in her own findings. Your links are saying that the glaciers are remaining unaffected, their original findings were showing that they are gaining mass. I haven't extrapolated anything that they haven't already officially noted. They are putting on mass, and by current theory of global warming here on TAN, they should be losing it.
That quote you posted from Gardelle was from 2008, before she went on record recently saying that korakoram are gaining mass. Even back in 2008, she vividly stated that the Himilayan's were gaining mass.
Why bold that? Are you insinuating that I don't think global warming is occurring? I've said it many times, and I don't know how many more I have to say it, but I don't doubt it, but I also think there are more cyclical forces at work here that without them, would not be occurring as we are seeing it.
Everything I'm saying only ADDS credence to global warming warming theory, because it illustrates quite clearly that our effect on the natural cycle of the earth is speeding some things up that shouldn't be happening for thousands of years. But, i don't think global warming is 100% wholly responsible for everything that is going on, that's just a ridiculous line of thought.
So, you've read Gardelle's research paper?
The text was placed in bold because you said of the paper cited "but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory". Gardelle disagrees with your analysis, and the quote is from 2012.
Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
[/quote]
Listen you fucking thicksickle! How many times do I have to explain this to you? Do I have to send you a pop-up book? A puppet show?
[quote user=proofinlife] Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting [/quote] That is simply untrue and keep repeating it.
proofinlife wrote:
Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
Listen you fucking thicksickle! How many times do I have to explain this to you? Do I have to send you a pop-up book? A puppet show?
proofinlife wrote:
Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=proofinlife]Everything I'm saying only ADDS credence to global warming warming theory, because it illustrates quite clearly that our effect on the natural cycle of the earth is speeding some things up that shouldn't be happening for thousands of years. But, i don't think global warming is 100% wholly responsible for everything that is going on, that's just a ridiculous line of thought. [/quote]
So, you've read Gardelle's research paper?
The text was placed in bold because you said of the paper cited "but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory". Gardelle disagrees with your analysis. [/quote]
And, for the second time. She said they were staying stable....NOT MELTING... in 2008. That doesn't disagree with me one bit. That's only the western Korakoram's you're willing to read about, you're completely dismissing her and other papers on the himalayas/korakoram gaining ice mass more recently, and at the very least, staying stable. So they're not melting. The global average temperature rise theory isn't working.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
Everything I'm saying only ADDS credence to global warming warming theory, because it illustrates quite clearly that our effect on the natural cycle of the earth is speeding some things up that shouldn't be happening for thousands of years. But, i don't think global warming is 100% wholly responsible for everything that is going on, that's just a ridiculous line of thought.
So, you've read Gardelle's research paper?
The text was placed in bold because you said of the paper cited "but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory". Gardelle disagrees with your analysis.
And, for the second time. She said they were staying stable....NOT MELTING... in 2008. That doesn't disagree with me one bit. That's only the western Korakoram's you're willing to read about, you're completely dismissing her and other papers on the himalayas/korakoram gaining ice mass more recently, and at the very least, staying stable. So they're not melting. The global average temperature rise theory isn't working.
Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
[/quote]
Listen you fucking thicksickle! How many times do I have to explain this to you? Do I have to send you a pop-up book? A puppet show?
[quote user=proofinlife] beliefs the glaciers should be melting [/quote] That is simply untrue and keep repeating it. [/quote]
Then quit sidestepping with name calling and get on with explaining it. All you've proven is you know how to call people names over the internet.
pablo420 wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
Listen you fucking thicksickle! How many times do I have to explain this to you? Do I have to send you a pop-up book? A puppet show?
proofinlife wrote:
beliefs the glaciers should be melting
That is simply untrue and keep repeating it.
Then quit sidestepping with name calling and get on with explaining it. All you've proven is you know how to call people names over the internet.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist] Gardelle disagrees with your analysis.[/quote]
And, for the second time. She said they were staying stable....NOT MELTING... in 2008. That doesn't disagree with me one bit. That's only the western Korakoram's you're willing to read about, you're completely dismissing her and other papers on the himalayas/korakoram gaining ice mass more recently, and at the very least, staying stable. So they're not melting. The global average temperature rise theory isn't working. [/quote]
No, the quote is from 2012. The maps they were using from the comparative study were from 2000 and 2008.
Have you read the research paper?
proofinlife wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Gardelle disagrees with your analysis.
And, for the second time. She said they were staying stable....NOT MELTING... in 2008. That doesn't disagree with me one bit. That's only the western Korakoram's you're willing to read about, you're completely dismissing her and other papers on the himalayas/korakoram gaining ice mass more recently, and at the very least, staying stable. So they're not melting. The global average temperature rise theory isn't working.
No, the quote is from 2012. The maps they were using from the comparative study were from 2000 and 2008.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=proofinlife] That doesn't disagree with me one bit. That's only the western Korakoram's you're willing to read about, you're completely dismissing her and other papers on the himalayas/korakoram gaining ice mass more recently, and at the very least, staying stable. So they're not melting. The global average temperature rise theory isn't working.[/quote]
No, the quote is from 2012.
Have you read the research paper? [/quote]
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
Based on 2008 data and information written by a news website using her 2008 data. Using material from your sources.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
That doesn't disagree with me one bit. That's only the western Korakoram's you're willing to read about, you're completely dismissing her and other papers on the himalayas/korakoram gaining ice mass more recently, and at the very least, staying stable. So they're not melting. The global average temperature rise theory isn't working.
No, the quote is from 2012.
Have you read the research paper?
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
Based on 2008 data and information written by a news website using her 2008 data. Using material from your sources.
^ The research paper used maps from 2000 and 2008 to perform a comparative analysis. The research paper was published in 2012. The article with the quote was published in 2012 (Paris (AFP) April 15, 2012).
Have you read the research paper?
^ The research paper used maps from 2000 and 2008 to perform a comparative analysis. The research paper was published in 2012. The article with the quote was published in 2012 (Paris (AFP) April 15, 2012).
^ That's fine. It's 2008 data published in 2012. It's 2008 information. You're just nitpicking now.
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
?
^ That's fine. It's 2008 data published in 2012. It's 2008 information. You're just nitpicking now.
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
No. It's quite important, because you suggested that the quote from Gardelle I'd used predated the recent study: "That quote you posted from Gardelle was from 2008, before she went on record recently saying that korakoram are gaining mass. Even back in 2008, she vividly stated that the Himilayan's were gaining mass." It didn't predate the study. It relates to the recent study.
Have you read the research paper?
No. It's quite important, because you suggested that the quote from Gardelle I'd used predated the recent study: "That quote you posted from Gardelle was from 2008, before she went on record recently saying that korakoram are gaining mass. Even back in 2008, she vividly stated that the Himilayan's were gaining mass." It didn't predate the study. It relates to the recent study.
^ Okay, we can argue when she said this, and when she published that. The fact is, that has nothing to do with the point you are so conveniently sidestepping.
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
?
Keep deflecting, all you need to do is prove that wrong by the very researcher you are using as a crutch.
^ Okay, we can argue when she said this, and when she published that. The fact is, that has nothing to do with the point you are so conveniently sidestepping.
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
?
Keep deflecting, all you need to do is prove that wrong by the very researcher you are using as a crutch.
^ Yes, and I am asking you a question that you simply refuse to answer and would rather nit-pick with study dates and publish dates, no one cares about that (even though the research supports my argument), this is about why glaciers in korakoram and himalays are not melting. You're not explaining anything, you're just asking the same deflectionary question over and over again, and it's not helping you prove anything.
So, explain.
I've answered your question with a simple "yes".
^ Yes, and I am asking you a question that you simply refuse to answer and would rather nit-pick with study dates and publish dates, no one cares about that (even though the research supports my argument), this is about why glaciers in korakoram and himalays are not melting. You're not explaining anything, you're just asking the same deflectionary question over and over again, and it's not helping you prove anything.
[quote user=proofinlife] ^ Yes, and I am asking you a question that you simply refuse to answer and would rather nit-pick with study dates and publish dates, no one cares about that (even though the research supports my argument), this is about why glaciers in korakoram and himalays are not melting. You're not explaining anything, you're just asking the same deflectionary question over and over again, and it's not helping you prove anything. [/quote]
You made an issue of the dates, not me. You tried to imply that my quote was out of date, it wasn't.
So, you'll have read this, then: "The slightly positive mass balance during 1999–2008 in the Karakoram contrasts with the negative global average and the few mass-balance values available in the rest of the HKKH range, which are negative over the past decades. "
proofinlife wrote:
^ Yes, and I am asking you a question that you simply refuse to answer and would rather nit-pick with study dates and publish dates, no one cares about that (even though the research supports my argument), this is about why glaciers in korakoram and himalays are not melting. You're not explaining anything, you're just asking the same deflectionary question over and over again, and it's not helping you prove anything.
You made an issue of the dates, not me. You tried to imply that my quote was out of date, it wasn't.
So, you'll have read this, then: "The slightly positive mass balance during 1999–2008 in the Karakoram contrasts with the negative global average and the few mass-balance values available in the rest of the HKKH range, which are negative over the past decades. "
[quote user=pablo420] Grown a tiny bit? That's what your hingeing your entire argument on. Back to the drawing board with you.
Oh, and incidentally, have you read the research paper? [/quote]
Uh oh, someone just brainfarted! They're not melting, it goes against your entire argument. They should be melting, care to explain why this is not happening, for the 148,324,233rd, time? I won't be expecting anything of value to this debate in return.
[quote]So, you'll have read this, then: "The slightly positive mass balance during 1999–2008 in the Karakoram contrasts with the negative global average and the few mass-balance values available in the rest of the HKKH range, which are negative over the past decades. "[/quote]
Yep, but that doesn't explain why they are gaining mass now. Hint: Cycle, not global warming. Definitely, not global warming.
pablo420 wrote:
Grown a tiny bit? That's what your hingeing your entire argument on. Back to the drawing board with you.
Oh, and incidentally, have you read the research paper?
Uh oh, someone just brainfarted! They're not melting, it goes against your entire argument. They should be melting, care to explain why this is not happening, for the 148,324,233rd, time? I won't be expecting anything of value to this debate in return.
wrote:
So, you'll have read this, then: "The slightly positive mass balance during 1999–2008 in the Karakoram contrasts with the negative global average and the few mass-balance values available in the rest of the HKKH range, which are negative over the past decades. "
Yep, but that doesn't explain why they are gaining mass now. Hint: Cycle, not global warming. Definitely, not global warming.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=pablo420]Oh, and incidentally, have you read the research paper?[/quote]
Uh oh, someone just brainfarted! They're not melting, it goes against your entire argument. They should be melting, care to explain why this is not happening, for the 148,324,233rd, time? I won't be expecting anything of value to this debate in return.
[quote user=]So, you'll have read this, then: "The slightly positive mass balance during 1999–2008 in the Karakoram contrasts with the negative global average and the few mass-balance values available in the rest of the HKKH range, which are negative over the past decades. "[/quote]
Yep, but that doesn't explain why they are gaining mass now. Hint: Cycle, not global warming. Definitely, not global warming.
[/quote]
A glacier is gaining mass in the HKKH range, most of them are not.
Here they suggest an explanation, which you'd know if you'd read the paper: "The interpretation of this now confirmed Karakoram anomaly is complicated by the lack of long-term programmes of field mass balance and the scarcity of near-glacier, up-to-date climate data. However, the climatic trends observed on valley floors (below 2,000m) above sea level during the last decades of the twentieth century can provide a first clue. Archer and Fowler reported an increase in winter precipitation since 1961, which is a potential source for greater accumulation in the upper parts of glaciers and can explain the glacier thickening measured above 5,300m above sea level (Supplementary Fig. S2). Furthermore, between 1961 and 2000, mean summer temperature declined at all climate stations, probably resulting in a decreasing glacier melt."
"The sea-level rise contribution for Karakoram glaciers during the past decade has been previously estimated using spatial extrapolation of the negative mass balances (range: -0.6 to -0.8myr-1w.e.) observed only in the central and eastern parts of the HKKH (ref. 13). Our conclusion that Karakoram glaciers had a small mass gain at the beginning of the twenty-first century indicates that those central/eastern glaciers are not representative of the whole HKKH."
proofinlife wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
Oh, and incidentally, have you read the research paper?
Uh oh, someone just brainfarted! They're not melting, it goes against your entire argument. They should be melting, care to explain why this is not happening, for the 148,324,233rd, time? I won't be expecting anything of value to this debate in return.
wrote:
So, you'll have read this, then: "The slightly positive mass balance during 1999–2008 in the Karakoram contrasts with the negative global average and the few mass-balance values available in the rest of the HKKH range, which are negative over the past decades. "
Yep, but that doesn't explain why they are gaining mass now. Hint: Cycle, not global warming. Definitely, not global warming.
A glacier is gaining mass in the HKKH range, most of them are not.
Here they suggest an explanation, which you'd know if you'd read the paper: "The interpretation of this now confirmed Karakoram anomaly is complicated by the lack of long-term programmes of field mass balance and the scarcity of near-glacier, up-to-date climate data. However, the climatic trends observed on valley floors (below 2,000m) above sea level during the last decades of the twentieth century can provide a first clue. Archer and Fowler reported an increase in winter precipitation since 1961, which is a potential source for greater accumulation in the upper parts of glaciers and can explain the glacier thickening measured above 5,300m above sea level (Supplementary Fig. S2). Furthermore, between 1961 and 2000, mean summer temperature declined at all climate stations, probably resulting in a decreasing glacier melt."
"The sea-level rise contribution for Karakoram glaciers during the past decade has been previously estimated using spatial extrapolation of the negative mass balances (range: -0.6 to -0.8myr-1w.e.) observed only in the central and eastern parts of the HKKH (ref. 13). Our conclusion that Karakoram glaciers had a small mass gain at the beginning of the twenty-first century indicates that those central/eastern glaciers are not representative of the whole HKKH."
"Furthermore, between 1961 and 2000, mean summer temperature declined at all climate stations12, probably resulting in a decreasing glacier melt."
Odd, temperature declined with global warming theory should be saying it got warmer.
@ Pabs
1. I accept the possibility. 2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
^ That's fine and dandy, but :
"Furthermore, between 1961 and 2000, mean summer temperature declined at all climate stations12, probably resulting in a decreasing glacier melt."
Odd, temperature declined with global warming theory should be saying it got warmer.
@ Pabs
1. I accept the possibility. 2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
1. I accept the possibility. 2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
[/quote]
1. Then why are basing your argument on an isolated anomaly? 2. All available data disagrees with you.
proofinlife wrote:
1. I accept the possibility. 2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
1. Then why are basing your argument on an isolated anomaly? 2. All available data disagrees with you.
1. I accept the possibility. 2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
[/quote]
1. Then why are basing your argument on an isolated anomaly? 2. All available theories disagree with you. [/quote]
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet. I agree that it's happening in generally central parts of the world, but this event in the northern hemisphere is lending credence to some other natural force that is not global warming related playing a major role. 2. Fixed. And that's totally fine.
pablo420 wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
1. I accept the possibility. 2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
1. Then why are basing your argument on an isolated anomaly? 2. All available theories disagree with you.
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet. I agree that it's happening in generally central parts of the world, but this event in the northern hemisphere is lending credence to some other natural force that is not global warming related playing a major role. 2. Fixed. And that's totally fine.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=pablo420] disagree with you. [/quote]
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet. 2. Fixed. And that's totally fine. [/quote]
Dear fucking spaghetti monster .. don't tell you're as stupid as Ed ...
Global climate change = verified theory Proof's babble bobble = unverified hypothesis
proofinlife wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
disagree with you.
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet. 2. Fixed. And that's totally fine.
Dear fucking spaghetti monster .. don't tell you're as stupid as Ed ...
Global climate change = verified theory Proof's babble bobble = unverified hypothesis
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=pablo420] disagree with you. [/quote]
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet. I agree that it's happening in generally central parts of the world, but this event in the northern hemisphere is lending credence to some other natural force that is not global warming related playing a major role. 2. Fixed. And that's totally fine. [/quote]
So all the recorded data is wrong in your opinion?
proofinlife wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
disagree with you.
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet. I agree that it's happening in generally central parts of the world, but this event in the northern hemisphere is lending credence to some other natural force that is not global warming related playing a major role. 2. Fixed. And that's totally fine.
So all the recorded data is wrong in your opinion?
So, how would your axial tilt/cyclical theory explain that. So far you've been running with the theme that tilt/cycle would explain the increase in scope of glaciers, how do you explain the data which suggests that only one glacier in the range is increasing, and the rest decreasing?
oh.
I don't think he read the paper, btw ;)
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
Cool Beans!
So, how would your axial tilt/cyclical theory explain that. So far you've been running with the theme that tilt/cycle would explain the increase in scope of glaciers, how do you explain the data which suggests that only one glacier in the range is increasing, and the rest decreasing?
So, how would your axial tilt/cyclical theory explain that. So far you've been running with the theme that tilt/cycle would explain the increase in scope of glaciers, how do you explain the data which suggests that only one glacier in the range is increasing, and the rest decreasing? [/quote] Yeah, coz like, glaciers melt and shit, then cold, desalinated water gets like, forced down main streams feeding the oceans and shit , then oceans get colder, planet cools down and shit, then like glaciers refreeze, oceans totallyy like, warm up and shit, temperature like stabilizes, wash, rinse and then like, repeat and shit
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
Cool Beans!
So, how would your axial tilt/cyclical theory explain that. So far you've been running with the theme that tilt/cycle would explain the increase in scope of glaciers, how do you explain the data which suggests that only one glacier in the range is increasing, and the rest decreasing?
Yeah, coz like, glaciers melt and shit, then cold, desalinated water gets like, forced down main streams feeding the oceans and shit , then oceans get colder, planet cools down and shit, then like glaciers refreeze, oceans totallyy like, warm up and shit, temperature like stabilizes, wash, rinse and then like, repeat and shit
Well there it is. He concedes humiliating defeat via the "just trolling" defence. Otester mk2... [/quote]
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish. The Earth is tilting on it's axis, it's not theory, it's scientific fact. That would lend credence to my argument undeniably. But that's cool, if you guys want to just blame gas guzzlers on climate change, go for it, I don't care.
pablo420 wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
I never said it was anything more.
Well there it is. He concedes humiliating defeat via the "just trolling" defence. Otester mk2...
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish. The Earth is tilting on it's axis, it's not theory, it's scientific fact. That would lend credence to my argument undeniably. But that's cool, if you guys want to just blame gas guzzlers on climate change, go for it, I don't care.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=pablo420]Well there it is. He concedes humiliating defeat via the "just trolling" defence. Otester mk2...[/quote]
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish. The Earth is tilting on it's axis, it's not theory, it's scientific fact. That would lend credence to my argument undeniably. But that's cool, if you guys want to just blame gas guzzlers on climate change, go for it, I don't care. [/quote]
So the incompetent, big-wordy, white-coaty scientist simply forgot to investigate these cycles?
FFS, and there you go with the "theory" again ...
Anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific fact. More importantly, it is also a scientific theory.
proofinlife wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
Well there it is. He concedes humiliating defeat via the "just trolling" defence. Otester mk2...
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish. The Earth is tilting on it's axis, it's not theory, it's scientific fact. That would lend credence to my argument undeniably. But that's cool, if you guys want to just blame gas guzzlers on climate change, go for it, I don't care.
So the incompetent, big-wordy, white-coaty scientist simply forgot to investigate these cycles?
FFS, and there you go with the "theory" again ...
Anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific fact. More importantly, it is also a scientific theory.
them eurofags have always thought too much of themselves, now they think they can warm up the fucking planet ffs, and even by accident
i say blame china, a billion cigarette smokers smoking 20 billion cigarettes every day must be warming up the earth with those lit ends, i mean it has to be init lol
them eurofags have always thought too much of themselves, now they think they can warm up the fucking planet ffs, and even by accident
i say blame china, a billion cigarette smokers smoking 20 billion cigarettes every day must be warming up the earth with those lit ends, i mean it has to be init lol
@Proof, so how does the axial tilt theory explain the non-anomalous glaciers in the HKKH range? You suggested that tilt helps explains glacial growth and cited the Karakorum glacier as evidence against global warming theory, so what about all the other glaciers in the HKKH range which are decreasing in scope? How are they explained?
@Proof, so how does the axial tilt theory explain the non-anomalous glaciers in the HKKH range? You suggested that tilt helps explains glacial growth and cited the Karakorum glacier as evidence against global warming theory, so what about all the other glaciers in the HKKH range which are decreasing in scope? How are they explained?
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=pablo420]Well there it is. He concedes humiliating defeat via the "just trolling" defence. Otester mk2... [/quote]
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish. [/quote]
And decades of research has eliminated every one of the natural cycles in explaining the current warming trend.
The onus is on you to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't cause said warming. The onus is on you to explain why the troposphere is warming whilst the stratosphere is cooling (which, as I've already stated can only be explained by an increase in the severity of the greenhouse effect).
proofinlife wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
Well there it is. He concedes humiliating defeat via the "just trolling" defence. Otester mk2...
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish.
And decades of research has eliminated every one of the natural cycles in explaining the current warming trend.
The onus is on you to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't cause said warming. The onus is on you to explain why the troposphere is warming whilst the stratosphere is cooling (which, as I've already stated can only be explained by an increase in the severity of the greenhouse effect).
[quote user=tuoni] [quote user=proofinlife]. That would lend credence to my argument undeniably. But that's cool, if you guys want to just blame gas guzzlers on climate change, go for it, I don't care. [/quote]
So the incompetent, big-wordy, white-coaty scientist simply forgot to investigate these cycles?
FFS, and there you go with the "theory" again ...
Anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific fact. More importantly, it is also a scientific theory. [/quote]
Considering nearly all I'm saying is explained by the wikipedia definition, I'd say your little self-injection in this thread is pointless.[quote user=pablo420] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]So, how would your axial tilt/cyclical theory explain that. So far you've been running with the theme that tilt/cycle would explain the increase in scope of glaciers, how do you explain the data which suggests that only one glacier in the range is increasing, and the rest decreasing? [/quote] Yeah, coz like, glaciers melt and shit, then cold, desalinated water gets like, forced down main streams feeding the oceans and shit , then oceans get colder, planet cools down and shit, then like glaciers refreeze, oceans totallyy like, warm up and shit, temperature like stabilizes, wash, rinse and then like, repeat and shit
[/quote]
You think this is just conjecture? You didn't read very much in milankovitch did you? Everything I've said is explained in this proven cycle. Glacial melt starts ice ages, it's a natural cycle that cools the oceans that cool the planet after a very warm period, bringing colder winters, and eventually no snow melt, and the definition of ice age begins. The warming period obviously would be global warming, again, which i don't deny occurs naturally in cycles, as well as unnaturally by man's interference.
tuoni wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
. That would lend credence to my argument undeniably. But that's cool, if you guys want to just blame gas guzzlers on climate change, go for it, I don't care.
So the incompetent, big-wordy, white-coaty scientist simply forgot to investigate these cycles?
FFS, and there you go with the "theory" again ...
Anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific fact. More importantly, it is also a scientific theory.
Considering nearly all I'm saying is explained by the wikipedia definition, I'd say your little self-injection in this thread is pointless.
pablo420 wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
So, how would your axial tilt/cyclical theory explain that. So far you've been running with the theme that tilt/cycle would explain the increase in scope of glaciers, how do you explain the data which suggests that only one glacier in the range is increasing, and the rest decreasing?
Yeah, coz like, glaciers melt and shit, then cold, desalinated water gets like, forced down main streams feeding the oceans and shit , then oceans get colder, planet cools down and shit, then like glaciers refreeze, oceans totallyy like, warm up and shit, temperature like stabilizes, wash, rinse and then like, repeat and shit
You think this is just conjecture? You didn't read very much in milankovitch did you? Everything I've said is explained in this proven cycle. Glacial melt starts ice ages, it's a natural cycle that cools the oceans that cool the planet after a very warm period, bringing colder winters, and eventually no snow melt, and the definition of ice age begins. The warming period obviously would be global warming, again, which i don't deny occurs naturally in cycles, as well as unnaturally by man's interference.
[quote user=pablo420] [quote user=proofinlife]I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish.[/quote]
And decades of research has eliminated every one of the natural cycles in explaining the current warming trend.
The onus is on you to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't cause said warming. The onus is on you to explain why the troposphere is warming whilst the stratosphere is cooling (which, as I've already stated can only be explained by an increase in the severity of the greenhouse effect). [/quote]
God damnit pabs, learn to fucking read. I never said it wasn't having an effect. I said you guys are simply putting all your bank on pollution being the only deciding factor why things are warming up, and completely dismissing proven planetary cycles as also contributing in a major way to what is going on. I don't have to prove anything, because I'm not fucking disagreeing with you on that, get that through your thick skull.
pablo420 wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish.
And decades of research has eliminated every one of the natural cycles in explaining the current warming trend.
The onus is on you to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't cause said warming. The onus is on you to explain why the troposphere is warming whilst the stratosphere is cooling (which, as I've already stated can only be explained by an increase in the severity of the greenhouse effect).
God damnit pabs, learn to fucking read. I never said it wasn't having an effect. I said you guys are simply putting all your bank on pollution being the only deciding factor why things are warming up, and completely dismissing proven planetary cycles as also contributing in a major way to what is going on. I don't have to prove anything, because I'm not fucking disagreeing with you on that, get that through your thick skull.
[quote user=proofinlife]Considering nearly all I'm saying is explained by the wikipedia definition, I'd say your little self-injection in this thread is pointless.[/quote]
Sciene is not in the words, but in the concepts. I may use slightly different words and explain it in a different manner, because I like simplicity ... and certain individuals have difficulty understanding the basics of science.
A scientific theory is superior to scientific fact. Yes, anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific theory, which means that is has far more weight than a scientific fact alone.
(EDIT)
[quote user=proofinlife]proven planetary cycles as also contributing in a major way to what is going on[/quote]
1) proven to not be a causal factor in global climate change. Burden of proof lie with you to prove otherwise.
[quote]I don't have to prove anything, because I'm not fucking disagreeing with you on that, get that through your thick skull.[/quote]
2) see point 1.
proofinlife wrote:
Considering nearly all I'm saying is explained by the wikipedia definition, I'd say your little self-injection in this thread is pointless.
Sciene is not in the words, but in the concepts. I may use slightly different words and explain it in a different manner, because I like simplicity ... and certain individuals have difficulty understanding the basics of science.
A scientific theory is superior to scientific fact. Yes, anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific theory, which means that is has far more weight than a scientific fact alone.
(EDIT)
proofinlife wrote:
proven planetary cycles as also contributing in a major way to what is going on
1) proven to not be a causal factor in global climate change. Burden of proof lie with you to prove otherwise.
wrote:
I don't have to prove anything, because I'm not fucking disagreeing with you on that, get that through your thick skull.
Also, if "Tilt theory works into my beliefs perfectly", then can you tell me how it explains the data which has found that most of the HKKH glaciers are decreasing? You said "glaciers are getting bigger in russia" citing this as evidence for your tilt theory... "the Russian glacier growth is happening because of this, and you can't refute because it's happening in plain sight. By global warming logic, those glaciers should be melting, not building mass." So, how do all the other glaciers which are decreasing - the non-anomalous ones - in the HKKH range fit into that belief... perfectly...
Also, if "Tilt theory works into my beliefs perfectly", then can you tell me how it explains the data which has found that most of the HKKH glaciers are decreasing? You said "glaciers are getting bigger in russia" citing this as evidence for your tilt theory... "the Russian glacier growth is happening because of this, and you can't refute because it's happening in plain sight. By global warming logic, those glaciers should be melting, not building mass." So, how do all the other glaciers which are decreasing - the non-anomalous ones - in the HKKH range fit into that belief... perfectly...
^ Ah! Back to the name calling I see! Clearly this makes your point oh-so-more true. But it's probably not as verifiable as "complete fucking idiot", amirite?
^ Ah! Back to the name calling I see! Clearly this makes your point oh-so-more true. But it's probably not as verifiable as "complete fucking idiot", amirite?
[quote user=proofinlife] ^ Ah! Back to the name calling I see! Clearly this makes your point oh-so-more true. But it's probably not as verifiable as "complete fucking idiot", amirite? [/quote]
don't worry, he thinks everyone should give away 1/2 their hard earned money so their neighbor can sit at home and drink, and beat his wife with whiskey bottles, while you struggle to feed your family..............oh shit, you think thats good too lmao
you complete fucking idiot lol
proofinlife wrote:
^ Ah! Back to the name calling I see! Clearly this makes your point oh-so-more true. But it's probably not as verifiable as "complete fucking idiot", amirite?
don't worry, he thinks everyone should give away 1/2 their hard earned money so their neighbor can sit at home and drink, and beat his wife with whiskey bottles, while you struggle to feed your family..............oh shit, you think thats good too lmao
this is now a horsepower thread. [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MZW4_BZfD0&feature=player_detailpage[/video] [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8WjpCI5oZs&feature=player_embedded#t=108s[/video] [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvAlXW3nvwk&feature=player_detailpage#t=7s[/video] [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uJBwQp2lh8&feature=player_detailpage#t=13s[/video] [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apW3f2lhfOI&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[quote user=proofinlife] ^ Ah! Back to the name calling I see! Clearly this makes your point oh-so-more true. But it's probably not as verifiable as "complete fucking idiot", amirite? [/quote]
Its kinda admirable, in the most abstract of ways, you took up Ed's failsword and swung it as hard as you could.
I remember watching ronald emmerich's 2012 for the lulz and still almost throwing up at seeing he used "cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis" as the explanation to his movie. In fact I was kinda reminded of it when I start reading past the doggerland crap. And then I saw you do this:
(it fits in with the new look of the trend)
proofinlife wrote:
^ Ah! Back to the name calling I see! Clearly this makes your point oh-so-more true. But it's probably not as verifiable as "complete fucking idiot", amirite?
Its kinda admirable, in the most abstract of ways, you took up Ed's failsword and swung it as hard as you could.
I remember watching ronald emmerich's 2012 for the lulz and still almost throwing up at seeing he used "cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis" as the explanation to his movie. In fact I was kinda reminded of it when I start reading past the doggerland crap. And then I saw you do this:
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user= It would come out all garbled and wrong. Like one of Proof's arguments. ][/quote] [/quote] proof argues purely on semantics... i doubt drinking makes anyone more pedantic..
hey proof! go get drunk!
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
[quote user= It would come out all garbled and wrong. Like one of Proof's arguments. ]
[/quote] proof argues purely on semantics... i doubt drinking makes anyone more pedantic..
^ turncoat.[quote user=darkzevahc] [quote user=proofinlife]^ Ah! Back to the name calling I see! Clearly this makes your point oh-so-more true. But it's probably not as verifiable as "complete fucking idiot", amirite?[/quote]
Its kinda admirable, in the most abstract of ways, you took up Ed's failsword and swung it as hard as you could.
I remember watching ronald emmerich's 2012 for the lulz and still almost throwing up at seeing he used "cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis" as the explanation to his movie. In fact I was kinda reminded of it when I start reading past the doggerland crap. And then I saw you do this:
(it fits in with the new look of the trend)
[/quote]
Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis? No. That's 2012'er shit right there. That's more up wolffe's or otester's alley.
The earth wobbles, and that wobble takes 41,000 years to complete one tilt. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is proven science, and basic fucking knowledge from elementary school, which is why I was so completely flabbergasted that everyone just dismisses natural tilt so easily, it's basic understanding of how the world works. The earth is not perfectly round and will inherently wobble on it's axis as it traverses it's orbit around the sun and the orbit reaches it's epigee or whatever it's called, the True North inherently moves with it. If anyone wants to refute that, that's fine, but then I'll start having to throw fecal matter right back at 'em.
^ turncoat.
darkzevahc wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
^ Ah! Back to the name calling I see! Clearly this makes your point oh-so-more true. But it's probably not as verifiable as "complete fucking idiot", amirite?
Its kinda admirable, in the most abstract of ways, you took up Ed's failsword and swung it as hard as you could.
I remember watching ronald emmerich's 2012 for the lulz and still almost throwing up at seeing he used "cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis" as the explanation to his movie. In fact I was kinda reminded of it when I start reading past the doggerland crap. And then I saw you do this:
(it fits in with the new look of the trend)
Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis? No. That's 2012'er shit right there. That's more up wolffe's or otester's alley.
The earth wobbles, and that wobble takes 41,000 years to complete one tilt. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is proven science, and basic fucking knowledge from elementary school, which is why I was so completely flabbergasted that everyone just dismisses natural tilt so easily, it's basic understanding of how the world works. The earth is not perfectly round and will inherently wobble on it's axis as it traverses it's orbit around the sun and the orbit reaches it's epigee or whatever it's called, the True North inherently moves with it. If anyone wants to refute that, that's fine, but then I'll start having to throw fecal matter right back at 'em.
[quote user=proofinlife] The earth wobbles, and that wobble takes 41,000 years to complete one tilt. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is proven science, and basic fucking knowledge from elementary school, which is why I was so completely flabbergasted that everyone just dismisses natural tilt so easily, it's basic understanding of how the world works. The earth is not perfectly round and will inherently wobble on it's axis as it traverses it's orbit around the sun and the orbit reaches it's epigee or whatever it's called, the True North inherently moves with it. If anyone wants to refute that, that's fine, but then I'll start having to throw fecal matter right back at 'em. [/quote]
There you go with that ed logic again. As if anyone were arguing that.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that human emissions are not the primary driver of the current warming trend, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Good luck with that.
proofinlife wrote:
The earth wobbles, and that wobble takes 41,000 years to complete one tilt. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is proven science, and basic fucking knowledge from elementary school, which is why I was so completely flabbergasted that everyone just dismisses natural tilt so easily, it's basic understanding of how the world works. The earth is not perfectly round and will inherently wobble on it's axis as it traverses it's orbit around the sun and the orbit reaches it's epigee or whatever it's called, the True North inherently moves with it. If anyone wants to refute that, that's fine, but then I'll start having to throw fecal matter right back at 'em.
There you go with that ed logic again. As if anyone were arguing that.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that human emissions are not the primary driver of the current warming trend, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Good luck with that.
^ I didn't say they weren't the primary driver, my point was pretty clear, that there other natural forces at work here that are contributing to it, that's all, end of story.
And if it's "ed logic", disprove proven fact, go ahead. "Good luck with that".
Anyhoo, this thread has gotten ridiculous, I'll let you talk to yourself from this point forward.
^ I didn't say they weren't the primary driver, my point was pretty clear, that there other natural forces at work here that are contributing to it, that's all, end of story.
And if it's "ed logic", disprove proven fact, go ahead. "Good luck with that".
Anyhoo, this thread has gotten ridiculous, I'll let you talk to yourself from this point forward.
[quote user=proofinlife] ^ I didn't say they weren't the primary driver, my point was pretty clear, that there other natural forces at work here that are contributing to it, that's all, end of story. [/quote]
And I asked you to name them.
[quote user=proofinlife] And if it's "ed logic", disprove proven fact, go ahead. "Good luck with that". [/quote]
Are you really this thick?
[quote user=proofinlife] Anyhoo, this thread has gotten ridiculous, I'll let you talk to yourself from this point forward. [/quote]
Well I'm sure that "fits into your beliefs" better...
proofinlife wrote:
^ I didn't say they weren't the primary driver, my point was pretty clear, that there other natural forces at work here that are contributing to it, that's all, end of story.
And I asked you to name them.
proofinlife wrote:
And if it's "ed logic", disprove proven fact, go ahead. "Good luck with that".
Are you really this thick?
proofinlife wrote:
Anyhoo, this thread has gotten ridiculous, I'll let you talk to yourself from this point forward.
Well I'm sure that "fits into your beliefs" better...
[quote user=darkzevahc] What is doggerland? I see it being labeled as Britian's "Alantis" and it was flooded into oblivion by a tsunami. [/quote]
It is the area between Britain & the mainland, that was above sea level 10 -12,000 years ago...
Google it.
You will find this, along with much more... :
"During the most recent glaciation, the Last Glacial Maximum that occurred around 18,000 years ago, the North Sea and almost all of the British Isles were covered with glacial ice and the sea level was about 120 m (390 ft) lower than it is today. After that the climate became warmer and during the Late Glacial Maximum much of the North Sea and English Channel was an expanse of low-lying tundra, extending around 12,000 BCE as far as the modern northern point of Scotland.[4]"
Note that it says, "SEA LEVELS WERE 390 ft LOSWER" than today. & after that the CLIMATE BECAME WARMER
darkzevahc wrote:
What is doggerland? I see it being labeled as Britian's "Alantis" and it was flooded into oblivion by a tsunami.
It is the area between Britain & the mainland, that was above sea level 10 -12,000 years ago...
Google it.
You will find this, along with much more... :
"During the most recent glaciation, the Last Glacial Maximum that occurred around 18,000 years ago, the North Sea and almost all of the British Isles were covered with glacial ice and the sea level was about 120 m (390 ft) lower than it is today. After that the climate became warmer and during the Late Glacial Maximum much of the North Sea and English Channel was an expanse of low-lying tundra, extending around 12,000 BCE as far as the modern northern point of Scotland.[4]"
Note that it says, "SEA LEVELS WERE 390 ft LOSWER" than today. & after that the CLIMATE BECAME WARMER
[quote user=pablo420][quote user=EdRoberts] [quote user=pablo420]You're an idiot.[/quote]
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot? [/quote]
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?[/quote]
"Ahem"...
pablo420 wrote:
EdRoberts wrote:
pablo420 wrote:
You're an idiot.
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
149
| 244 views | www.guardian.co.uk
[/quote]
You're an idiot.
You're an idiot.
These include reflecting the sun's rays back into space, making clouds whiter and seeding the ocean with minerals to absorb more CO2.
.........................aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you are all fucking nuts.
These include reflecting the sun's rays back into space, making clouds whiter and seeding the ocean with minerals to absorb more CO2.
.........................aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you are all fucking nuts.
You're an idiot.
[/quote]
sorry, Ed has you on this one (unfortunately), we are still coming out of a mini-ice-age that occurred around 10k years ago.
yes, humans contribute to the warming, but we are a drop in the bucket, the earth would be warming if we were here or not.
You're an idiot.
sorry, Ed has you on this one (unfortunately), we are still coming out of a mini-ice-age that occurred around 10k years ago.
yes, humans contribute to the warming, but we are a drop in the bucket, the earth would be warming if we were here or not.
You come out of the ice-age abruptly, then you slowly cool for the next 30,000 years or so, and stay that way for a hundred thousand. Of course, this is only about 5 degrees over a hundred thousand years...
The current warming is at a rate of about 2-5 degrees every hundred years. The Arctic hasn't been ice-free since the ice-ages even began, over a million years ago. It's a new age for the Earth.
You come out of the ice-age abruptly, then you slowly cool for the next 30,000 years or so, and stay that way for a hundred thousand. Of course, this is only about 5 degrees over a hundred thousand years...
The current warming is at a rate of about 2-5 degrees every hundred years. The Arctic hasn't been ice-free since the ice-ages even began, over a million years ago. It's a new age for the Earth.
You're an idiot.
[/quote]
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
You're an idiot.
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
You come out of the ice-age abruptly, then you slowly cool for the next 30,000 years or so, and stay that way for a hundred thousand. Of course, this is only about 5 degrees over a hundred thousand years...
The current warming is at a rate of about 2-5 degrees every hundred years. The Arctic hasn't been ice-free since the ice-ages even began, over a million years ago. It's a new age for the Earth.
[/quote]
[quote]The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the 19th century or early in the 20th century.[/quote]
we are still warming up from it
You come out of the ice-age abruptly, then you slowly cool for the next 30,000 years or so, and stay that way for a hundred thousand. Of course, this is only about 5 degrees over a hundred thousand years...
The current warming is at a rate of about 2-5 degrees every hundred years. The Arctic hasn't been ice-free since the ice-ages even began, over a million years ago. It's a new age for the Earth.
we are still warming up from it
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
[/quote]
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
[/quote]
GAMERA!
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
GAMERA!
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
[/quote]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zyjLyBp64[/video]
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
[/quote]
[/quote]
Yes, and I have a conspiracy theory as to what caused it...
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8CadIi00U4[/video]
Yes, and I have a conspiracy theory as to what caused it...
Doggerland is scientific proof that the fucking sea level has risen 400 feet - over 10-12,000 years, and, since the sea rise was not (we strongly assume) caused by primitive man driving his Mercedes...but rather by 'natural' warming, it is therefore PROOF that the warming (and cooling) of the earth is CYCLICAL. Sooooo, get your head out of your ass, and fight back against the brain-washing you have been subjected to in your schooling. Just sayin'; no offense.
Doggerland is scientific proof that the fucking sea level has risen 400 feet - over 10-12,000 years, and, since the sea rise was not (we strongly assume) caused by primitive man driving his Mercedes...but rather by 'natural' warming, it is therefore PROOF that the warming (and cooling) of the earth is CYCLICAL. Sooooo, get your head out of your ass, and fight back against the brain-washing you have been subjected to in your schooling. Just sayin'; no offense.
Quit being a douche, and getting Pablo all worked up... "snicker"
Quit being a douche, and getting Pablo all worked up... "snicker"
See! Even dumb-ass agrees with me...
See! Even dumb-ass agrees with me...
Sooooo, you believe that the sea level rose 400 feet because? Oh, that's right, because Jesus commanded it to...
Simply amazing how you people can deny a scientific fact... Climate is C-Y-C-L-I-C-A-L
Sooooo, you believe that the sea level rose 400 feet because? Oh, that's right, because Jesus commanded it to...
Simply amazing how you people can deny a scientific fact... Climate is C-Y-C-L-I-C-A-L
What is doggerland? His bait for trolling, that's what it is. That's all it ever should be.
What is doggerland? His bait for trolling, that's what it is. That's all it ever should be.
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
[/quote]
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
[/quote]
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?[/quote]
[/quote]
The exact same forces that have driven it for hundred of millions of years since the planet cooled off and took it's place among the solar system. Glaciers melt, cold, desalinated water gets forced down main streams feeding the oceans, oceans get colder, planet cools down, glaciers refreeze, oceans warm up, temperature stabilizes, wash, rinse, repeat. There are other variables that can affect early freeze/melt, such as planetary tilt (the true north pole is always moving, extremely slowly, but moving, just guess where it is heading....), and considering everything is warming up as expected and glaciers are getting even bigger in russia, would prove that tilt theory and natural climate change are working hand in hand in today's "crisis" that is really just a natural part of the entire cycle.
Sure, I don't deny humans haven't affected it a bit, but considering the earth can swallow up more than enough co2 than we could ever put out, I'd say it's next to negligible compared to what the mainstream media would like to blow it up to be and what everyone is believing.
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
The exact same forces that have driven it for hundred of millions of years since the planet cooled off and took it's place among the solar system. Glaciers melt, cold, desalinated water gets forced down main streams feeding the oceans, oceans get colder, planet cools down, glaciers refreeze, oceans warm up, temperature stabilizes, wash, rinse, repeat. There are other variables that can affect early freeze/melt, such as planetary tilt (the true north pole is always moving, extremely slowly, but moving, just guess where it is heading....), and considering everything is warming up as expected and glaciers are getting even bigger in russia, would prove that tilt theory and natural climate change are working hand in hand in today's "crisis" that is really just a natural part of the entire cycle.
Sure, I don't deny humans haven't affected it a bit, but considering the earth can swallow up more than enough co2 than we could ever put out, I'd say it's next to negligible compared to what the mainstream media would like to blow it up to be and what everyone is believing.
The fact is, to discount the theory of anthropogenic global warming you not only have to come up with an entirely new mechanism for explaining it, you also have to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 isn't causing the warming that 200 years of irrefutable science says it should be.
The fact is, to discount the theory of anthropogenic global warming you not only have to come up with an entirely new mechanism for explaining it, you also have to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 isn't causing the warming that 200 years of irrefutable science says it should be.
The fact is, to discount the theory of anthropogenic global warming you not only have to come up with an entirely new mechanism for explaining it, you also have to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 isn't causing the warming that 200 years of irrefutable science says it should be.
[/quote]
No, i'm actually talking about the earth tilting on it's polar rotational axises, and the fact that the true north is heading towards russia proves that unrefutably. Poles don't just move on their own without the entire planet moving with it, and the planet can't spin off kilter from it's axis. We're tilting, and it's not a cycle, it's an active progression that has gone on since the planet was created and it will never stop. The sahara desert was created because of this, monsoons that kept it lush moved south because axial tilt was actively changing.
Like I said, the Russian glacier growth is happening because of this, and you can't refute because it's happening in plain sight. By global warming logic, those glaciers should be melting, not building mass.
The fact is, to discount the theory of anthropogenic global warming you not only have to come up with an entirely new mechanism for explaining it, you also have to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 isn't causing the warming that 200 years of irrefutable science says it should be.
No, i'm actually talking about the earth tilting on it's polar rotational axises, and the fact that the true north is heading towards russia proves that unrefutably. Poles don't just move on their own without the entire planet moving with it, and the planet can't spin off kilter from it's axis. We're tilting, and it's not a cycle, it's an active progression that has gone on since the planet was created and it will never stop. The sahara desert was created because of this, monsoons that kept it lush moved south because axial tilt was actively changing.
Like I said, the Russian glacier growth is happening because of this, and you can't refute because it's happening in plain sight. By global warming logic, those glaciers should be melting, not building mass.
No, i'm actually talking about the earth tilting on it's polar rotational axises
[/quote]
Which is one of the factors included in the Milankovich Cycle:
Milankovitch theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković, who worked on it during First World War internment. Milanković mathematically theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing.
You're not coming up with anything new you know? All of the alternatives have been discounted for decades.
No, i'm actually talking about the earth tilting on it's polar rotational axises
Which is one of the factors included in the Milankovich Cycle:
Milankovitch theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković, who worked on it during First World War internment. Milanković mathematically theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing.
You're not coming up with anything new you know? All of the alternatives have been discounted for decades.
[/quote]
the magnetic north pole.
the magnetic north pole.
the magnetic north pole.
[/quote]
Hence my comments on the "north pole" and "true north pole".
the magnetic north pole.
Hence my comments on the "north pole" and "true north pole".
[/quote]
[/quote]
And? True North is Magnetic North, dummy. North Pole is the 90 degree pole we see at the top of global maps, two very different things.
And? True North is Magnetic North, dummy. North Pole is the 90 degree pole we see at the top of global maps, two very different things.
[/quote]
And? True North is Magnetic North, dummy. North Pole is the 90 degree pole we see at the top of global maps, two very different things.
[/quote]
why do you always pwn yourself?
And? True North is Magnetic North, dummy. North Pole is the 90 degree pole we see at the top of global maps, two very different things.
why do you always pwn yourself?
[quote user=proofinlife]This explains why the glaciers are building up in russia and melting in the arctic circle.
[/quote]
No doesn't.
[quote user=proofinlife]
Can you address that and explain how glaciers are gaining mass when the *theory* you subscribe to says they should be losing them?
[/quote]
What *theory* (your typical tin-foiler misinterpretation of the meaning of scientific theory notwithstanding) says that Russian glaciers should be shrinking? I must have missed that paper. Global average temperatures are rising. Isolating regional anomalies does not undermine AGW. It's called cherry picking.
I already explained that the Milankovich cycle can't account for the current warming. Decades of peer reviewed research backs that up. Apparently your *theory* of climate change rests on some magical force causing glacial build up and decline.
Global average temperatures are rising. The fact that the Troposphere is warming whilst the Stratosphere is cooling proves that the cause of the warming is an increase in the severity of the Greenhouse effect. Nothing else can explain this phenomena.
No doesn't.
Can you address that and explain how glaciers are gaining mass when the *theory* you subscribe to says they should be losing them?
What *theory* (your typical tin-foiler misinterpretation of the meaning of scientific theory notwithstanding) says that Russian glaciers should be shrinking? I must have missed that paper. Global average temperatures are rising. Isolating regional anomalies does not undermine AGW. It's called cherry picking.
I already explained that the Milankovich cycle can't account for the current warming. Decades of peer reviewed research backs that up. Apparently your *theory* of climate change rests on some magical force causing glacial build up and decline.
Global average temperatures are rising. The fact that the Troposphere is warming whilst the Stratosphere is cooling proves that the cause of the warming is an increase in the severity of the Greenhouse effect. Nothing else can explain this phenomena.
^ Christ man, I never said milankovitch was the SOLE REASON for global warming. Please, show me where I said that. If you read ALL of my posts on the matter, you would see that I am saying the current crisis everyone is pissing their pants over is really nothing more than a culmination of seperate (yet entwined) natural events that were going to happen sooner or later; as I said, a cycle. In clear text for you, I said milankovitch cycle is responsible for the arctic glacial melt and russian glacial gain. That's all. I explained that the natural global warming cycle that irrefutably happens and has happened since the earth cooled down (you cannot deny that, and please don't try, that's like saying ice ages never happened) has probably alot more to do with global warming than you're giving credit. You're simply passing off the entire buck on pollution, which I personally don't buy one bit.
Quit sidestepping, and explain why russian glaciers are gaining mass, western yukon is experiencing the COLDEST and EARLIEST winter it's seen in decades, your global warming theory doesn't explain that, in fact they go against it clearly right in it's face. The glaciers should be melting and yukon should be having warmer weather than normal. You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic. It's not cherry picking, it's showing you that global average temperatures ARE NOT rising across the board, and there is some phenomena you and your selected schools of thought are completely missing. This is why I am asking you to show HOW the glaciers are gaining mass when the temperature should be warmer and the glaciers should be melting, according to everything you're saying. This "regional anomaly" you speak of just happens to be covering the entire northern hemisphere between Arctic Canada and West Russia, the exact area that is under huge international watch because of the glacial melt in the arctic..... that's a HUGE anomaly.
You're talking to me like I am completely refuting the greenhouse pollution theory. I'm not. I simply think there are other forces at work alongside it such as natural climatic cycles that just happen to be taking effect at the same time everyone is shitting their pants over greenhouse gases. Keeping an open mind tends to help.
Oh, and drop the insults. It's showing you're uneasy even with your own explanation. "Tin-Foiler" is generally reserved for conspiracy theorists, and I am not explaining any conspiracy in the least bit. I am not otester, let's get that clear. If this is all it takes for you to turn a good debate into a name calling fest, I'd recommend taking a look at your securities, or should I say insecurities.
^ Christ man, I never said milankovitch was the SOLE REASON for global warming. Please, show me where I said that. If you read ALL of my posts on the matter, you would see that I am saying the current crisis everyone is pissing their pants over is really nothing more than a culmination of seperate (yet entwined) natural events that were going to happen sooner or later; as I said, a cycle. In clear text for you, I said milankovitch cycle is responsible for the arctic glacial melt and russian glacial gain. That's all. I explained that the natural global warming cycle that irrefutably happens and has happened since the earth cooled down (you cannot deny that, and please don't try, that's like saying ice ages never happened) has probably alot more to do with global warming than you're giving credit. You're simply passing off the entire buck on pollution, which I personally don't buy one bit.
Quit sidestepping, and explain why russian glaciers are gaining mass, western yukon is experiencing the COLDEST and EARLIEST winter it's seen in decades, your global warming theory doesn't explain that, in fact they go against it clearly right in it's face. The glaciers should be melting and yukon should be having warmer weather than normal. You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic. It's not cherry picking, it's showing you that global average temperatures ARE NOT rising across the board, and there is some phenomena you and your selected schools of thought are completely missing. This is why I am asking you to show HOW the glaciers are gaining mass when the temperature should be warmer and the glaciers should be melting, according to everything you're saying. This "regional anomaly" you speak of just happens to be covering the entire northern hemisphere between Arctic Canada and West Russia, the exact area that is under huge international watch because of the glacial melt in the arctic..... that's a HUGE anomaly.
You're talking to me like I am completely refuting the greenhouse pollution theory. I'm not. I simply think there are other forces at work alongside it such as natural climatic cycles that just happen to be taking effect at the same time everyone is shitting their pants over greenhouse gases. Keeping an open mind tends to help.
Oh, and drop the insults. It's showing you're uneasy even with your own explanation. "Tin-Foiler" is generally reserved for conspiracy theorists, and I am not explaining any conspiracy in the least bit. I am not otester, let's get that clear. If this is all it takes for you to turn a good debate into a name calling fest, I'd recommend taking a look at your securities, or should I say insecurities.
russian glaciers are gaining mass,
[/quote]
I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
[quote user=proofinlife]
You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic.
[/quote]
Maybe he meant MEAN temp? semantics..or that the global average temperature not global average temperatures are rising. pedantic
[quote user=proofinlife]Oh, and drop the insults. It's showing you're uneasy even with your own explanation.[/quote]
this i agree with.
russian glaciers are gaining mass,
I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic.
Maybe he meant MEAN temp? semantics..or that the global average temperature not global average temperatures are rising. pedantic
this i agree with.
russian glaciers are gaining mass,
[/quote]I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
[/quote]
Also adding in links to Asian Glaciers following the same trend. It just so happens that these glaciers are on the same longitudinal average that Russia's are on, and if axial tilt is correct, would make sense why the entire "hot spot" is shifting west; these spots in the arctic are receiving more exposure to the sun and less insulation, whereas Russia's and China's are starting to face away from the sun.
Korakoram Glaciers : http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/green/global-warming/120415/karakoram-glaciers-getting-bigger-not-melting
Asia's Glaciers : http://www.globalfreepress.org/contributors/usa/robert-w-felix/3256-glaciers-on-asias-largest-mountain-range-getting-bigger
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
Link to Ice Age Explanation, page text search for "Tilt", it's not exactly wikipedia, but it explains it pretty clearly :
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
russian glaciers are gaining mass,
I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
Also adding in links to Asian Glaciers following the same trend. It just so happens that these glaciers are on the same longitudinal average that Russia's are on, and if axial tilt is correct, would make sense why the entire "hot spot" is shifting west; these spots in the arctic are receiving more exposure to the sun and less insulation, whereas Russia's and China's are starting to face away from the sun.
Korakoram Glaciers : http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/green/global-warming/120415/karakoram-glaciers-getting-bigger-not-melting
Asia's Glaciers : http://www.globalfreepress.org/contributors/usa/robert-w-felix/3256-glaciers-on-asias-largest-mountain-range-getting-bigger
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
Link to Ice Age Explanation, page text search for "Tilt", it's not exactly wikipedia, but it explains it pretty clearly :
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
[/quote]The report authors don't think so:
"Apparently, the situation in the Karakoram is a little different (from elsewhere), which means that the glaciers are stable for the time being," Julie Gardelle of the University of Grenoble in southeastern France told AFP.
"But it does not detract in any way from the evidence for overall global warming,""In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
The report authors don't think so:
"Apparently, the situation in the Karakoram is a little different (from elsewhere), which means that the glaciers are stable for the time being," Julie Gardelle of the University of Grenoble in southeastern France told AFP.
"But it does not detract in any way from the evidence for overall global warming,""In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."
^ Christ man, I never said milankovitch was the SOLE REASON for global warming. Please, show me where I said that.
Actually, in a way you're worse than otester. While he believes that all of the worlds scientific institutions are engaged in massive, implausible conspiracy, you simply believe that they're wrong and that you know better, based apparently on gut instinct. You see, there's a stong difference between the rigorous application of the scientific method and internet based conjecture. One of them puts robotic SUVs on the surface of Mars, the other just keeps James Delingpole in a job.[/quote]
I never said that you said that.
[quote user=proofinlife]
If you read ALL of my posts on the matter, you would see that I am saying the current crisis everyone is pissing their pants over is really nothing more than a culmination of seperate (yet entwined) natural events that were going to happen sooner or later; as I said, a cycle.
[/quote]
Seperate, yet entwined?
[quote user=proofinlife]
In clear text for you, I said milankovitch cycle is responsible for the arctic glacial melt and russian glacial gain. That's all.
[/quote]
Perhaps you can point me towards the peer reviewed study that confirms this?
[quote user=proofinlife]
I explained that the natural global warming cycle that irrefutably happens and has happened since the earth cooled down (you cannot deny that, and please don't try, that's like saying ice ages never happened)has probably alot more to do with global warming than you're giving credit.
[/quote]
And now you're adopting Ed's strawman argument. Stop it. Like I already stated earlier, the current warming cannot be explained by any natural phenomena such as the Malankovich cycle because a)It's out of sync (we should in fact, be experiencing a long term cooling trend and b)The warming is occuring far too rapidly.
[quote user=proofinlife]
You're simply passing off the entire buck on pollution, which I personally don't buy one bit.
[/quote]
No. I'm siding with the scientific consensus. You can choose to buy whatever voodoo nonsense you like.
[quote user=proofinlife]
Quit sidestepping, and explain why russian glaciers are gaining mass, western yukon is experiencing the COLDEST and EARLIEST winter it's seen in decades, your global warming theory doesn't explain that, in fact they go against it clearly right in it's face. The glaciers should be melting and yukon should be having warmer weather than normal. You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic. It's not cherry picking, it's showing you that global average temperatures ARE NOT rising across the board, and there is some phenomena you and your selected schools of thought are completely missing. This is why I am asking you to show HOW the glaciers are gaining mass when the temperature should be warmer and the glaciers should be melting, according to everything you're saying. This "regional anomaly" you speak of just happens to be covering the entire northern hemisphere between Arctic Canada and West Russia, the exact area that is under huge international watch because of the glacial melt in the arctic..... that's a HUGE anomaly.
[/quote]
You don't seem to understand. Nobody has ever said that climate change (natural or anthropogenic) occurs in a predictable, uniform fashion. Far from it. We knew that anthropogenic global warming would be most pronounced at the poles (it has been) and that the increased greenhouse effedt would cause warming of the Troposphere and cooling of the Stratosphere (which it has). The effect on weather patterns and regional climates is far harder to predict. I read somewhere (can't remember else I'd post a link) that increased winter snow due to these changes could account for some extra glacial mass.
The point is, you're cherry picking again. You can't base your argument on what's happening in any particular part of the world. The global average temperature has risen and continues to rise. The majority of the worlds glaciers are in retreat. These are the facts.
[quote user=proofinlife]
You're talking to me like I am completely refuting the greenhouse pollution theory. I'm not. I simply think there are other forces at work alongside it such as natural climatic cycles that just happen to be taking effect at the same time everyone is shitting their pants over greenhouse gases. Keeping an open mind tends to help.
[/quote]
There is no debate on this in the scientific community because this argument was settled two decades ago. Human emissions ARE the number one cause of the current climate change.
[quote user=proofinlife]
Oh, and drop the insults. It's showing you're uneasy even with your own explanation. "Tin-Foiler" is generally reserved for conspiracy theorists, and I am not explaining any conspiracy in the least bit. I am not otester, let's get that clear. If this is all it takes for you to turn a good debate into a name calling fest, I'd recommend taking a look at your securities, or should I say insecurities.
[/quote]
^ Christ man, I never said milankovitch was the SOLE REASON for global warming. Please, show me where I said that.
I never said that you said that.
If you read ALL of my posts on the matter, you would see that I am saying the current crisis everyone is pissing their pants over is really nothing more than a culmination of seperate (yet entwined) natural events that were going to happen sooner or later; as I said, a cycle.
Seperate, yet entwined?
In clear text for you, I said milankovitch cycle is responsible for the arctic glacial melt and russian glacial gain. That's all.
Perhaps you can point me towards the peer reviewed study that confirms this?
I explained that the natural global warming cycle that irrefutably happens and has happened since the earth cooled down (you cannot deny that, and please don't try, that's like saying ice ages never happened)has probably alot more to do with global warming than you're giving credit.
And now you're adopting Ed's strawman argument. Stop it. Like I already stated earlier, the current warming cannot be explained by any natural phenomena such as the Malankovich cycle because a)It's out of sync (we should in fact, be experiencing a long term cooling trend and b)The warming is occuring far too rapidly.
You're simply passing off the entire buck on pollution, which I personally don't buy one bit.
No. I'm siding with the scientific consensus. You can choose to buy whatever voodoo nonsense you like.
Quit sidestepping, and explain why russian glaciers are gaining mass, western yukon is experiencing the COLDEST and EARLIEST winter it's seen in decades, your global warming theory doesn't explain that, in fact they go against it clearly right in it's face. The glaciers should be melting and yukon should be having warmer weather than normal. You say global average temperatures are rising; that would imply that temperatures EVERYWHERE are rising, and current events would most definitely undermine that logic. It's not cherry picking, it's showing you that global average temperatures ARE NOT rising across the board, and there is some phenomena you and your selected schools of thought are completely missing. This is why I am asking you to show HOW the glaciers are gaining mass when the temperature should be warmer and the glaciers should be melting, according to everything you're saying. This "regional anomaly" you speak of just happens to be covering the entire northern hemisphere between Arctic Canada and West Russia, the exact area that is under huge international watch because of the glacial melt in the arctic..... that's a HUGE anomaly.
You don't seem to understand. Nobody has ever said that climate change (natural or anthropogenic) occurs in a predictable, uniform fashion. Far from it. We knew that anthropogenic global warming would be most pronounced at the poles (it has been) and that the increased greenhouse effedt would cause warming of the Troposphere and cooling of the Stratosphere (which it has). The effect on weather patterns and regional climates is far harder to predict. I read somewhere (can't remember else I'd post a link) that increased winter snow due to these changes could account for some extra glacial mass.
The point is, you're cherry picking again. You can't base your argument on what's happening in any particular part of the world. The global average temperature has risen and continues to rise. The majority of the worlds glaciers are in retreat. These are the facts.
You're talking to me like I am completely refuting the greenhouse pollution theory. I'm not. I simply think there are other forces at work alongside it such as natural climatic cycles that just happen to be taking effect at the same time everyone is shitting their pants over greenhouse gases. Keeping an open mind tends to help.
There is no debate on this in the scientific community because this argument was settled two decades ago. Human emissions ARE the number one cause of the current climate change.
Oh, and drop the insults. It's showing you're uneasy even with your own explanation. "Tin-Foiler" is generally reserved for conspiracy theorists, and I am not explaining any conspiracy in the least bit. I am not otester, let's get that clear. If this is all it takes for you to turn a good debate into a name calling fest, I'd recommend taking a look at your securities, or should I say insecurities.
russian glaciers are gaining mass,
[/quote]
[/quote]I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
Also adding in links to Asian Glaciers following the same trend. It just so happens that these glaciers are on the same longitudinal average that Russia's are on, and if axial tilt is correct, would make sense why the entire "hot spot" is shifting west; these spots in the arctic are receiving more exposure to the sun and less insulation, whereas Russia's and China's are starting to face away from the sun.
Korakoram Glaciers : http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/green/global-warming/120415/karakoram-glaciers-getting-bigger-not-melting
Asia's Glaciers : http://www.globalfreepress.org/contributors/usa/robert-w-felix/3256-glaciers-on-asias-largest-mountain-range-getting-bigger
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
Link to Ice Age Explanation, page text search for "Tilt", it's not exactly wikipedia, but it explains it pretty clearly :
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
[/quote]
Those are your sources? Really?
Why not check in with the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, or the World Glacier Monitoring Service instead of batshit right-wing blogs?
russian glaciers are gaining mass,
I actually want to see a link that says this, i was unsuccessful when i just looked it up.
Also adding in links to Asian Glaciers following the same trend. It just so happens that these glaciers are on the same longitudinal average that Russia's are on, and if axial tilt is correct, would make sense why the entire "hot spot" is shifting west; these spots in the arctic are receiving more exposure to the sun and less insulation, whereas Russia's and China's are starting to face away from the sun.
Korakoram Glaciers : http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/green/global-warming/120415/karakoram-glaciers-getting-bigger-not-melting
Asia's Glaciers : http://www.globalfreepress.org/contributors/usa/robert-w-felix/3256-glaciers-on-asias-largest-mountain-range-getting-bigger
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
Link to Ice Age Explanation, page text search for "Tilt", it's not exactly wikipedia, but it explains it pretty clearly :
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
Those are your sources? Really?
Why not check in with the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, or the World Glacier Monitoring Service instead of batshit right-wing blogs?
^ Those are just examples, pabs. There are hundreds of websites on the topic for both Korakoram Glaciers and the Himalayan Glaciers. I just took one of the many available.
[quote user=proofinlife]But then again, this isn't about where I get my sources from, this is about you disproving my theory and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say. In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory.
So, quit being petty, quit trying to nit pick at little fucking things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and fucking debate. This isn't a "who can nit pick completely irrelevant bullshit" contest.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
[/quote]The report authors don't think so:
"Apparently, the situation in the Karakoram is a little different (from elsewhere), which means that the glaciers are stable for the time being," Julie Gardelle of the University of Grenoble in southeastern France told AFP.
"But it does not detract in any way from the evidence for overall global warming,"
"In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."
[/quote]
See, pabs, you need to take examples from digi here. This is all i'm asking for from you, not your nitpicking pedantic bullshit.
@Digi, the problem with those links you provided, is that they are saying the glaciers are staying the same because the area is unaffected by the current Global temperature rise. They fail to explain why they are gaining mass. That is what this is all about.
Secondly, they don't explain why Yukon and East Russia are experiencing the coldest weather they have in nearly a century for the past two years, according to the postulation in that link, it should be staying the average it has been, not getting far colder and earlier winters and longer nights.
^ Those are just examples, pabs. There are hundreds of websites on the topic for both Korakoram Glaciers and the Himalayan Glaciers. I just took one of the many available.
But then again, this isn't about where I get my sources from, this is about you disproving my theory and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say. In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory.
So, quit being petty, quit trying to nit pick at little fucking things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and fucking debate. This isn't a "who can nit pick completely irrelevant bullshit" contest.
And there was some other rumblings about the same thing happening with glaciers gaining mass at the himalayas near the north east pakistan border, but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory, etc etc. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the pakistan glaciers are connected to the Chinese glaciers. But if I'm wrong it proves my theory even moreso.
The report authors don't think so:
"Apparently, the situation in the Karakoram is a little different (from elsewhere), which means that the glaciers are stable for the time being," Julie Gardelle of the University of Grenoble in southeastern France told AFP.
"But it does not detract in any way from the evidence for overall global warming,"
"In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."
See, pabs, you need to take examples from digi here. This is all i'm asking for from you, not your nitpicking pedantic bullshit.
@Digi, the problem with those links you provided, is that they are saying the glaciers are staying the same because the area is unaffected by the current Global temperature rise. They fail to explain why they are gaining mass. That is what this is all about.
Secondly, they don't explain why Yukon and East Russia are experiencing the coldest weather they have in nearly a century for the past two years, according to the postulation in that link, it should be staying the average it has been, not getting far colder and earlier winters and longer nights.
^ Those are just examples, pabs. There are hundreds of websites on the topic for both Korakoram Glaciers and the Himalayan Glaciers. I just took one of the many available.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist]The report authors don't think so:But then again, this isn't about where I get my sources from, this is about you disproving my theory and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say. In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory.
So, quit being petty, quit trying to nit pick at little fucking things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and fucking debate. This isn't a "who can nit pick completely irrelevant bullshit" contest.
"Apparently, the situation in the Karakoram is a little different (from elsewhere), which means that the glaciers are stable for the time being," Julie Gardelle of the University of Grenoble in southeastern France told AFP.
"But it does not detract in any way from the evidence for overall global warming,"
[/quote]"In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."
See, pabs, you need to take examples from digi here. This is all i'm asking for from you, not your nitpicking pedantic bullshit.
@Digi, the problem with those links you provided, is that they are saying the glaciers are staying the same because the area is unaffected by the current Global temperature rise. They fail to explain why they are gaining mass. That is what this is all about.
Secondly, they don't explain why Yukon and East Russia are experiencing the coldest weather they have in nearly a century for the past two years, according to the postulation in that link, it should be staying the average it has been, not getting far colder and earlier winters and longer nights.
[/quote]
The links I provided, proof, were quotes from the researchers who published the articles you cited, relating to the study you're citing as evidence for your global tilt theory. It really isn't my problem if you have decided to extrapolate beyond their findings or the remit of their research.Did you read the research paper your articles cite?
^ Those are just examples, pabs. There are hundreds of websites on the topic for both Korakoram Glaciers and the Himalayan Glaciers. I just took one of the many available.
But then again, this isn't about where I get my sources from, this is about you disproving my theory and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say. In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory.
So, quit being petty, quit trying to nit pick at little fucking things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and fucking debate. This isn't a "who can nit pick completely irrelevant bullshit" contest.
"Apparently, the situation in the Karakoram is a little different (from elsewhere), which means that the glaciers are stable for the time being," Julie Gardelle of the University of Grenoble in southeastern France told AFP.
"But it does not detract in any way from the evidence for overall global warming,"
"In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."
See, pabs, you need to take examples from digi here. This is all i'm asking for from you, not your nitpicking pedantic bullshit.
@Digi, the problem with those links you provided, is that they are saying the glaciers are staying the same because the area is unaffected by the current Global temperature rise. They fail to explain why they are gaining mass. That is what this is all about.
Secondly, they don't explain why Yukon and East Russia are experiencing the coldest weather they have in nearly a century for the past two years, according to the postulation in that link, it should be staying the average it has been, not getting far colder and earlier winters and longer nights.
Did you read the research paper your articles cite?
[/quote]
You don't have a theory. You have half arsed conjecture.
[quote user=proofinlife]
and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say.
[/quote]
I didn't say they were melting because global average temperature is rising. Are you saying global average temperature is not rising?
[quote user=proofinlife]
In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory.
[/quote]
What delusional nonsense is that? It's pointless to continue in a debate in which you've already established the terms of victory around such alice in wonderland rules. I already explained that isolated glacial growth and regional cold spells do not undermine the overall picture of warmer global average temperature and glacial retreat. I am not nit-picking. You are cherry picking.
[quote user=proofinlife]
Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening
[/quote]
This statement alone undermines your entire argument. Back to the drawing board with you.
You don't have a theory. You have half arsed conjecture.
and telling me that Russia's glaciers are in fact melting because the global average temperature is rising, as you say.
I didn't say they were melting because global average temperature is rising. Are you saying global average temperature is not rising?
In order to win this debate, you're going to have to soundly describe to me HOW this is NOT happening, when, in plain view, it is happening, and there is no way to deny it. Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening, thus soundly proving that you may need to rethink some of your beliefs on global warming theory.
What delusional nonsense is that? It's pointless to continue in a debate in which you've already established the terms of victory around such alice in wonderland rules. I already explained that isolated glacial growth and regional cold spells do not undermine the overall picture of warmer global average temperature and glacial retreat. I am not nit-picking. You are cherry picking.
Based on your beliefs and what should be happening according to them, the glaciers gaining mass should NOT be happening
This statement alone undermines your entire argument. Back to the drawing board with you.
@ Digi : Yes, I read what you cited. And it seems to go against what Gardelle officially noted in her own findings. Your links are saying that the glaciers are remaining unaffected, their original findings were showing that they are gaining mass. I haven't extrapolated anything that they haven't already officially noted. They are putting on mass, and by current theory of global warming here on TAN, they should be losing it.
That quote you posted from Gardelle was from 2008, before she went on record recently saying that korakoram are gaining mass. Even back in 2008, she vividly stated that the Himilayan's were gaining mass.
And even so, if they weren't gaining mass, your links quote her as saying it's remaining stable. By current TAN global warming theory, they should be melting, lending credence to my argument once more.
[quote]"But it does not detract in any way from the evidence for overall global warming,"[/quote]
Why bold that? Are you insinuating that I don't think global warming is occurring? I've said it many times, and I don't know how many more I have to say it, but I don't doubt it, but I also think there are more cyclical forces at work here that without them, would not be occurring as we are seeing it.
Everything I'm saying only ADDS credence to global warming warming theory, because it illustrates quite clearly that our effect on the natural cycle of the earth is speeding some things up that shouldn't be happening for thousands of years. But, i don't think global warming is 100% wholly responsible for everything that is going on, that's just a ridiculous line of thought.
@ Pabs:
How did that last statement undermine what I'm saying? Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
I'll make it clear for you guys.
I am not saying in any way shape or form global warming is not occuring. I am saying that the reason the northern hemisphere around Russia and Yukon just happens to be moving, thus cooling the area down and lending ice mass.
So both of you can quit trying to twist everything I've said into something else. This is about me saying how natural cycles of events have a lot more to do with global warming than either of you will admit. You're simply passing the buck off on man-manipulated weather. I personally don't believe that one bit, it's lazy.
@ Digi : Yes, I read what you cited. And it seems to go against what Gardelle officially noted in her own findings. Your links are saying that the glaciers are remaining unaffected, their original findings were showing that they are gaining mass. I haven't extrapolated anything that they haven't already officially noted. They are putting on mass, and by current theory of global warming here on TAN, they should be losing it.
That quote you posted from Gardelle was from 2008, before she went on record recently saying that korakoram are gaining mass. Even back in 2008, she vividly stated that the Himilayan's were gaining mass.
And even so, if they weren't gaining mass, your links quote her as saying it's remaining stable. By current TAN global warming theory, they should be melting, lending credence to my argument once more.
Why bold that? Are you insinuating that I don't think global warming is occurring? I've said it many times, and I don't know how many more I have to say it, but I don't doubt it, but I also think there are more cyclical forces at work here that without them, would not be occurring as we are seeing it.
Everything I'm saying only ADDS credence to global warming warming theory, because it illustrates quite clearly that our effect on the natural cycle of the earth is speeding some things up that shouldn't be happening for thousands of years. But, i don't think global warming is 100% wholly responsible for everything that is going on, that's just a ridiculous line of thought.
@ Pabs:
How did that last statement undermine what I'm saying? Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
I'll make it clear for you guys.
I am not saying in any way shape or form global warming is not occuring. I am saying that the reason the northern hemisphere around Russia and Yukon just happens to be moving, thus cooling the area down and lending ice mass.
So both of you can quit trying to twist everything I've said into something else. This is about me saying how natural cycles of events have a lot more to do with global warming than either of you will admit. You're simply passing the buck off on man-manipulated weather. I personally don't believe that one bit, it's lazy.
That quote you posted from Gardelle was from 2008, before she went on record recently saying that korakoram are gaining mass. Even back in 2008, she vividly stated that the Himilayan's were gaining mass.
[quote user=]"But it does not detract in any way from the evidence for overall global warming,"[/quote]
Why bold that? Are you insinuating that I don't think global warming is occurring? I've said it many times, and I don't know how many more I have to say it, but I don't doubt it, but I also think there are more cyclical forces at work here that without them, would not be occurring as we are seeing it.
Everything I'm saying only ADDS credence to global warming warming theory, because it illustrates quite clearly that our effect on the natural cycle of the earth is speeding some things up that shouldn't be happening for thousands of years. But, i don't think global warming is 100% wholly responsible for everything that is going on, that's just a ridiculous line of thought.
[/quote]
So, you've read Gardelle's research paper?
The text was placed in bold because you said of the paper cited "but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory". Gardelle disagrees with your analysis, and the quote is from 2012.
That quote you posted from Gardelle was from 2008, before she went on record recently saying that korakoram are gaining mass. Even back in 2008, she vividly stated that the Himilayan's were gaining mass.
Why bold that? Are you insinuating that I don't think global warming is occurring? I've said it many times, and I don't know how many more I have to say it, but I don't doubt it, but I also think there are more cyclical forces at work here that without them, would not be occurring as we are seeing it.
Everything I'm saying only ADDS credence to global warming warming theory, because it illustrates quite clearly that our effect on the natural cycle of the earth is speeding some things up that shouldn't be happening for thousands of years. But, i don't think global warming is 100% wholly responsible for everything that is going on, that's just a ridiculous line of thought.
So, you've read Gardelle's research paper?
The text was placed in bold because you said of the paper cited "but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory". Gardelle disagrees with your analysis, and the quote is from 2012.
Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
[/quote]
Listen you fucking thicksickle! How many times do I have to explain this to you? Do I have to send you a pop-up book? A puppet show?
[quote user=proofinlife]
Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting
[/quote]
That is simply untrue and keep repeating it.
Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
Listen you fucking thicksickle! How many times do I have to explain this to you? Do I have to send you a pop-up book? A puppet show?
Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting
That is simply untrue and keep repeating it.
So, you've read Gardelle's research paper?
The text was placed in bold because you said of the paper cited "but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory". Gardelle disagrees with your analysis.
[/quote]
And, for the second time. She said they were staying stable....NOT MELTING... in 2008. That doesn't disagree with me one bit. That's only the western Korakoram's you're willing to read about, you're completely dismissing her and other papers on the himalayas/korakoram gaining ice mass more recently, and at the very least, staying stable. So they're not melting. The global average temperature rise theory isn't working.
So, you've read Gardelle's research paper?
The text was placed in bold because you said of the paper cited "but these two links should suffice; it's the same exact story., it goes against global warming theory". Gardelle disagrees with your analysis.
And, for the second time. She said they were staying stable....NOT MELTING... in 2008. That doesn't disagree with me one bit. That's only the western Korakoram's you're willing to read about, you're completely dismissing her and other papers on the himalayas/korakoram gaining ice mass more recently, and at the very least, staying stable. So they're not melting. The global average temperature rise theory isn't working.
Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
[/quote]Listen you fucking thicksickle! How many times do I have to explain this to you? Do I have to send you a pop-up book? A puppet show?
[quote user=proofinlife] beliefs the glaciers should be melting
[/quote]
That is simply untrue and keep repeating it.
[/quote]
Then quit sidestepping with name calling and get on with explaining it. All you've proven is you know how to call people names over the internet.
Based on your beliefs the glaciers should be melting. They should NOT be gaining mass, or at the very least, staying stable. There's no back to the drawing board, it's you simply sidestepping it, AGAIN.
Listen you fucking thicksickle! How many times do I have to explain this to you? Do I have to send you a pop-up book? A puppet show?
That is simply untrue and keep repeating it.
Then quit sidestepping with name calling and get on with explaining it. All you've proven is you know how to call people names over the internet.
And, for the second time. She said they were staying stable....NOT MELTING... in 2008. That doesn't disagree with me one bit. That's only the western Korakoram's you're willing to read about, you're completely dismissing her and other papers on the himalayas/korakoram gaining ice mass more recently, and at the very least, staying stable. So they're not melting. The global average temperature rise theory isn't working.
[/quote]
No, the quote is from 2012. The maps they were using from the comparative study were from 2000 and 2008.
Have you read the research paper?
And, for the second time. She said they were staying stable....NOT MELTING... in 2008. That doesn't disagree with me one bit. That's only the western Korakoram's you're willing to read about, you're completely dismissing her and other papers on the himalayas/korakoram gaining ice mass more recently, and at the very least, staying stable. So they're not melting. The global average temperature rise theory isn't working.
No, the quote is from 2012. The maps they were using from the comparative study were from 2000 and 2008.
Have you read the research paper?
No, the quote is from 2012.
Have you read the research paper?
[/quote]
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
Based on 2008 data and information written by a news website using her 2008 data. Using material from your sources.
No, the quote is from 2012.
Have you read the research paper?
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
Based on 2008 data and information written by a news website using her 2008 data. Using material from your sources.
Have you read the research paper?
Have you read the research paper?
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
?
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
?
Have you read the research paper?
Have you read the research paper?
^ Okay, we can argue when she said this, and when she published that. The fact is, that has nothing to do with the point you are so conveniently sidestepping.
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
?
Keep deflecting, all you need to do is prove that wrong by the very researcher you are using as a crutch.
^ Okay, we can argue when she said this, and when she published that. The fact is, that has nothing to do with the point you are so conveniently sidestepping.
"But a French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year."
?
Keep deflecting, all you need to do is prove that wrong by the very researcher you are using as a crutch.
Have you read the research paper?
BTW, she's not my crutch, she's YOUR source.
In this thread Proof supplies a source, and then procedes to argue with that source...
Have you read the research paper?
BTW, she's not my crutch, she's YOUR source.
In this thread Proof supplies a source, and then procedes to argue with that source...
^ Yes, and I am asking you a question that you simply refuse to answer and would rather nit-pick with study dates and publish dates, no one cares about that (even though the research supports my argument), this is about why glaciers in korakoram and himalays are not melting. You're not explaining anything, you're just asking the same deflectionary question over and over again, and it's not helping you prove anything.
So, explain.
I've answered your question with a simple "yes".
^ Yes, and I am asking you a question that you simply refuse to answer and would rather nit-pick with study dates and publish dates, no one cares about that (even though the research supports my argument), this is about why glaciers in korakoram and himalays are not melting. You're not explaining anything, you're just asking the same deflectionary question over and over again, and it's not helping you prove anything.
So, explain.
I've answered your question with a simple "yes".
Oh, and incidentally, have you read the research paper?
Oh, and incidentally, have you read the research paper?
[/quote]
You made an issue of the dates, not me. You tried to imply that my quote was out of date, it wasn't.
So, you'll have read this, then: "The slightly positive mass balance during 1999–2008 in the Karakoram contrasts with the negative global average and the few mass-balance values available in the rest of the HKKH range, which are negative over the past decades. "
You made an issue of the dates, not me. You tried to imply that my quote was out of date, it wasn't.
So, you'll have read this, then: "The slightly positive mass balance during 1999–2008 in the Karakoram contrasts with the negative global average and the few mass-balance values available in the rest of the HKKH range, which are negative over the past decades. "
[quote user=pablo420] Grown a tiny bit? That's what your hingeing your entire argument on. Back to the drawing board with you.
Oh, and incidentally, have you read the research paper?
[/quote]
Uh oh, someone just brainfarted! They're not melting, it goes against your entire argument. They should be melting, care to explain why this is not happening, for the 148,324,233rd, time? I won't be expecting anything of value to this debate in return.
[quote]So, you'll have read this, then: "The slightly positive mass balance during 1999–2008 in the Karakoram contrasts with the negative global average and the few mass-balance values available in the rest of the HKKH range, which are negative over the past decades. "[/quote]
Yep, but that doesn't explain why they are gaining mass now. Hint: Cycle, not global warming. Definitely, not global warming.
Oh, and incidentally, have you read the research paper?
Uh oh, someone just brainfarted! They're not melting, it goes against your entire argument. They should be melting, care to explain why this is not happening, for the 148,324,233rd, time? I won't be expecting anything of value to this debate in return.
Yep, but that doesn't explain why they are gaining mass now. Hint: Cycle, not global warming. Definitely, not global warming.
I respectfully request that you answer two questions:
1. Do you accept that the global trend is glacial retreat?
2. Do you accept that the global trend is increased average temperature?
I respectfully request that you answer two questions:
1. Do you accept that the global trend is glacial retreat?
2. Do you accept that the global trend is increased average temperature?
Uh oh, someone just brainfarted! They're not melting, it goes against your entire argument. They should be melting, care to explain why this is not happening, for the 148,324,233rd, time? I won't be expecting anything of value to this debate in return.
[quote user=]So, you'll have read this, then: "The slightly positive mass balance during 1999–2008 in the Karakoram contrasts with the negative global average and the few mass-balance values available in the rest of the HKKH range, which are negative over the past decades. "[/quote]
Yep, but that doesn't explain why they are gaining mass now. Hint: Cycle, not global warming. Definitely, not global warming.
[/quote]
A glacier is gaining mass in the HKKH range, most of them are not.
Here they suggest an explanation, which you'd know if you'd read the paper:
"The interpretation of this now confirmed Karakoram anomaly is complicated by the lack of long-term programmes of field mass balance and the scarcity of near-glacier, up-to-date climate data. However, the climatic trends observed on valley floors (below 2,000m) above sea level during the last decades of the twentieth century can provide a first clue. Archer and Fowler reported an increase in winter precipitation since 1961, which is a potential source for greater accumulation in the upper parts of glaciers and can explain the glacier thickening measured above 5,300m above sea level (Supplementary Fig. S2). Furthermore, between 1961 and 2000, mean summer temperature declined at all climate stations, probably resulting in a decreasing glacier melt."
"The sea-level rise contribution for Karakoram glaciers during the past decade has been previously estimated using spatial extrapolation of the negative mass balances (range: -0.6 to -0.8myr-1w.e.) observed only in the central and eastern parts of the HKKH (ref. 13). Our conclusion that Karakoram glaciers had a small mass gain at the beginning of the twenty-first century indicates that those central/eastern glaciers are not representative of the whole HKKH."
Uh oh, someone just brainfarted! They're not melting, it goes against your entire argument. They should be melting, care to explain why this is not happening, for the 148,324,233rd, time? I won't be expecting anything of value to this debate in return.
Yep, but that doesn't explain why they are gaining mass now. Hint: Cycle, not global warming. Definitely, not global warming.
A glacier is gaining mass in the HKKH range, most of them are not.
Here they suggest an explanation, which you'd know if you'd read the paper:
"The interpretation of this now confirmed Karakoram anomaly is complicated by the lack of long-term programmes of field mass balance and the scarcity of near-glacier, up-to-date climate data. However, the climatic trends observed on valley floors (below 2,000m) above sea level during the last decades of the twentieth century can provide a first clue. Archer and Fowler reported an increase in winter precipitation since 1961, which is a potential source for greater accumulation in the upper parts of glaciers and can explain the glacier thickening measured above 5,300m above sea level (Supplementary Fig. S2). Furthermore, between 1961 and 2000, mean summer temperature declined at all climate stations, probably resulting in a decreasing glacier melt."
"The sea-level rise contribution for Karakoram glaciers during the past decade has been previously estimated using spatial extrapolation of the negative mass balances (range: -0.6 to -0.8myr-1w.e.) observed only in the central and eastern parts of the HKKH (ref. 13). Our conclusion that Karakoram glaciers had a small mass gain at the beginning of the twenty-first century indicates that those central/eastern glaciers are not representative of the whole HKKH."
[/quote]
No it doesn't.
No it doesn't.
^ That's fine and dandy, but :
"Furthermore, between 1961 and 2000, mean summer temperature declined at all climate stations12, probably resulting in a decreasing glacier melt."
Odd, temperature declined with global warming theory should be saying it got warmer.
@ Pabs
1. I accept the possibility.
2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
^ That's fine and dandy, but :
"Furthermore, between 1961 and 2000, mean summer temperature declined at all climate stations12, probably resulting in a decreasing glacier melt."
Odd, temperature declined with global warming theory should be saying it got warmer.
@ Pabs
1. I accept the possibility.
2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
[/quote]
Big surprise, Korakoram's even an anomaly to them. Even they can't explain it.
Big surprise, Korakoram's even an anomaly to them. Even they can't explain it.
1. I accept the possibility.
2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
[/quote]
1. Then why are basing your argument on an isolated anomaly?
2. All available data disagrees with you.
1. I accept the possibility.
2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
1. Then why are basing your argument on an isolated anomaly?
2. All available data disagrees with you.
1. I accept the possibility.
[/quote]2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
1. Then why are basing your argument on an isolated anomaly?
2. All available theories disagree with you.
[/quote]
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet. I agree that it's happening in generally central parts of the world, but this event in the northern hemisphere is lending credence to some other natural force that is not global warming related playing a major role.
2. Fixed. And that's totally fine.
1. I accept the possibility.
2. No, because it's gotten even colder in the northern hemisphere between russia and yukon. It's not a global trend. It's most definitely happening in parts of the world, but not that huge frikkin' area that I mentioned, in fact, it's going the exact opposite way. It's moving away from the sun on it's natural 41,000 year tilt cycle.
1. Then why are basing your argument on an isolated anomaly?
2. All available theories disagree with you.
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet. I agree that it's happening in generally central parts of the world, but this event in the northern hemisphere is lending credence to some other natural force that is not global warming related playing a major role.
2. Fixed. And that's totally fine.
Big surprise, Korakoram's even an anomaly to them. Even they can't explain it.
[/quote]
Yes, it's an anomaly. Most, if not all other, glaciers in the HKKH range are decreasing in scope.
Big surprise, Korakoram's even an anomaly to them. Even they can't explain it.
Yes, it's an anomaly. Most, if not all other, glaciers in the HKKH range are decreasing in scope.
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet.
2. Fixed. And that's totally fine.
[/quote]
Dear fucking spaghetti monster .. don't tell you're as stupid as Ed ...
Global climate change = verified theory
Proof's babble bobble = unverified hypothesis
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet.
2. Fixed. And that's totally fine.
Dear fucking spaghetti monster .. don't tell you're as stupid as Ed ...
Global climate change = verified theory
Proof's babble bobble = unverified hypothesis
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet. I agree that it's happening in generally central parts of the world, but this event in the northern hemisphere is lending credence to some other natural force that is not global warming related playing a major role.
2. Fixed. And that's totally fine.
[/quote]
So all the recorded data is wrong in your opinion?
1. I said I accept the possibility. I didn't say I accept it. And again, it's not isolated if it's taken up an entire quadrant of the planet. I agree that it's happening in generally central parts of the world, but this event in the northern hemisphere is lending credence to some other natural force that is not global warming related playing a major role.
2. Fixed. And that's totally fine.
So all the recorded data is wrong in your opinion?
Yes, it's an anomaly. Most, if not all other, glaciers in the HKKH range are decreasing in scope.
[/quote]
Cool Beans!
Yes, it's an anomaly. Most, if not all other, glaciers in the HKKH range are decreasing in scope.
Cool Beans!
Dear fucking spaghetti monster .. don't tell you're as stupid as Ed ...
Global climate change = verified theory
Proof's babble bobble = unverified hypothesis
[/quote]
I never said it was anything more.
Dear fucking spaghetti monster .. don't tell you're as stupid as Ed ...
Global climate change = verified theory
Proof's babble bobble = unverified hypothesis
I never said it was anything more.
Dear fucking spaghetti monster .. don't tell you're as stupid as Ed ...
Global climate change = verified theory
Proof's babble bobble = unverified hypothesis
[/quote]
He has to be trolling. No can be this demonstrably tarded...
Dear fucking spaghetti monster .. don't tell you're as stupid as Ed ...
Global climate change = verified theory
Proof's babble bobble = unverified hypothesis
He has to be trolling. No can be this demonstrably tarded...
Proof's babble bobble = unverified hypothesis[/quote]
I never said it was anything more.
[/quote]
So, naturally the burden of proof lie with you, Mr. proof.
Not with the theories of global climate change.
Proof's babble bobble = unverified hypothesis
I never said it was anything more.
So, naturally the burden of proof lie with you, Mr. proof.
Not with the theories of global climate change.
Well there it is. He concedes humiliating defeat via the "just trolling" defence. Otester mk2...
Well there it is. He concedes humiliating defeat via the "just trolling" defence. Otester mk2...
So, how would your axial tilt/cyclical theory explain that. So far you've been running with the theme that tilt/cycle would explain the increase in scope of glaciers, how do you explain the data which suggests that only one glacier in the range is increasing, and the rest decreasing?
oh.
I don't think he read the paper, btw ;)
So, how would your axial tilt/cyclical theory explain that. So far you've been running with the theme that tilt/cycle would explain the increase in scope of glaciers, how do you explain the data which suggests that only one glacier in the range is increasing, and the rest decreasing?
oh.
I don't think he read the paper, btw
So, how would your axial tilt/cyclical theory explain that. So far you've been running with the theme that tilt/cycle would explain the increase in scope of glaciers, how do you explain the data which suggests that only one glacier in the range is increasing, and the rest decreasing?
[/quote]
Yeah, coz like, glaciers melt and shit, then cold, desalinated water gets like, forced down main streams feeding the oceans and shit , then oceans get colder, planet cools down and shit, then like glaciers refreeze, oceans totallyy like, warm up and shit, temperature like stabilizes, wash, rinse and then like, repeat and shit
So, how would your axial tilt/cyclical theory explain that. So far you've been running with the theme that tilt/cycle would explain the increase in scope of glaciers, how do you explain the data which suggests that only one glacier in the range is increasing, and the rest decreasing?
Yeah, coz like, glaciers melt and shit, then cold, desalinated water gets like, forced down main streams feeding the oceans and shit , then oceans get colder, planet cools down and shit, then like glaciers refreeze, oceans totallyy like, warm up and shit, temperature like stabilizes, wash, rinse and then like, repeat and shit
[/quote]
Well there it is. He concedes humiliating defeat via the "just trolling" defence. Otester mk2...
[/quote]
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish. The Earth is tilting on it's axis, it's not theory, it's scientific fact. That would lend credence to my argument undeniably. But that's cool, if you guys want to just blame gas guzzlers on climate change, go for it, I don't care.
Well there it is. He concedes humiliating defeat via the "just trolling" defence. Otester mk2...
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish. The Earth is tilting on it's axis, it's not theory, it's scientific fact. That would lend credence to my argument undeniably. But that's cool, if you guys want to just blame gas guzzlers on climate change, go for it, I don't care.
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish. The Earth is tilting on it's axis, it's not theory, it's scientific fact. That would lend credence to my argument undeniably. But that's cool, if you guys want to just blame gas guzzlers on climate change, go for it, I don't care.
[/quote]
So the incompetent, big-wordy, white-coaty scientist simply forgot to investigate these cycles?
FFS, and there you go with the "theory" again ...
Anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific fact. More importantly, it is also a scientific theory.
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish. The Earth is tilting on it's axis, it's not theory, it's scientific fact. That would lend credence to my argument undeniably. But that's cool, if you guys want to just blame gas guzzlers on climate change, go for it, I don't care.
So the incompetent, big-wordy, white-coaty scientist simply forgot to investigate these cycles?
FFS, and there you go with the "theory" again ...
Anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific fact. More importantly, it is also a scientific theory.
i say blame china, a billion cigarette smokers smoking 20 billion cigarettes every day must be warming up the earth with those lit ends, i mean it has to be init lol
i say blame china, a billion cigarette smokers smoking 20 billion cigarettes every day must be warming up the earth with those lit ends, i mean it has to be init lol
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish.
[/quote]
And decades of research has eliminated every one of the natural cycles in explaining the current warming trend.
The onus is on you to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't cause said warming. The onus is on you to explain why the troposphere is warming whilst the stratosphere is cooling (which, as I've already stated can only be explained by an increase in the severity of the greenhouse effect).
And here we go again, words being put in mouths.....
There is no defeat when I never once said Global warming was incorrect, as I've said a million times, there are more natural cycles at work and passing the buck on global warming is just completely foolish. If you guys want to go that route, fine and dandy. But that's called "sticking your head in the sand", the earth is moving, and has been since it was created, you can't stop it, nor can you disprove it. There are other forces heating and cooling the planet, and it's not just global warming because man is polluting too much, that's lazy fucking logic.
I simply don't accept one explanation being man's influence on climate being the ONLY reason things get colder and warmer. That's like saying Ice Ages never happened, which again, is completely foolish.
And decades of research has eliminated every one of the natural cycles in explaining the current warming trend.
The onus is on you to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't cause said warming. The onus is on you to explain why the troposphere is warming whilst the stratosphere is cooling (which, as I've already stated can only be explained by an increase in the severity of the greenhouse effect).
So the incompetent, big-wordy, white-coaty scientist simply forgot to investigate these cycles?
FFS, and there you go with the "theory" again ...
Anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific fact. More importantly, it is also a scientific theory.
[/quote]
Considering nearly all I'm saying is explained by the wikipedia definition, I'd say your little self-injection in this thread is pointless.[quote user=pablo420] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]So, how would your axial tilt/cyclical theory explain that. So far you've been running with the theme that tilt/cycle would explain the increase in scope of glaciers, how do you explain the data which suggests that only one glacier in the range is increasing, and the rest decreasing? [/quote]
Yeah, coz like, glaciers melt and shit, then cold, desalinated water gets like, forced down main streams feeding the oceans and shit , then oceans get colder, planet cools down and shit, then like glaciers refreeze, oceans totallyy like, warm up and shit, temperature like stabilizes, wash, rinse and then like, repeat and shit
[/quote]
You think this is just conjecture? You didn't read very much in milankovitch did you? Everything I've said is explained in this proven cycle. Glacial melt starts ice ages, it's a natural cycle that cools the oceans that cool the planet after a very warm period, bringing colder winters, and eventually no snow melt, and the definition of ice age begins. The warming period obviously would be global warming, again, which i don't deny occurs naturally in cycles, as well as unnaturally by man's interference.
So the incompetent, big-wordy, white-coaty scientist simply forgot to investigate these cycles?
FFS, and there you go with the "theory" again ...
Anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific fact. More importantly, it is also a scientific theory.
Considering nearly all I'm saying is explained by the wikipedia definition, I'd say your little self-injection in this thread is pointless.
Yeah, coz like, glaciers melt and shit, then cold, desalinated water gets like, forced down main streams feeding the oceans and shit , then oceans get colder, planet cools down and shit, then like glaciers refreeze, oceans totallyy like, warm up and shit, temperature like stabilizes, wash, rinse and then like, repeat and shit
You think this is just conjecture? You didn't read very much in milankovitch did you? Everything I've said is explained in this proven cycle. Glacial melt starts ice ages, it's a natural cycle that cools the oceans that cool the planet after a very warm period, bringing colder winters, and eventually no snow melt, and the definition of ice age begins. The warming period obviously would be global warming, again, which i don't deny occurs naturally in cycles, as well as unnaturally by man's interference.
And decades of research has eliminated every one of the natural cycles in explaining the current warming trend.
The onus is on you to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't cause said warming. The onus is on you to explain why the troposphere is warming whilst the stratosphere is cooling (which, as I've already stated can only be explained by an increase in the severity of the greenhouse effect).
[/quote]
God damnit pabs, learn to fucking read. I never said it wasn't having an effect. I said you guys are simply putting all your bank on pollution being the only deciding factor why things are warming up, and completely dismissing proven planetary cycles as also contributing in a major way to what is going on. I don't have to prove anything, because I'm not fucking disagreeing with you on that, get that through your thick skull.
And decades of research has eliminated every one of the natural cycles in explaining the current warming trend.
The onus is on you to explain why pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't cause said warming. The onus is on you to explain why the troposphere is warming whilst the stratosphere is cooling (which, as I've already stated can only be explained by an increase in the severity of the greenhouse effect).
God damnit pabs, learn to fucking read. I never said it wasn't having an effect. I said you guys are simply putting all your bank on pollution being the only deciding factor why things are warming up, and completely dismissing proven planetary cycles as also contributing in a major way to what is going on. I don't have to prove anything, because I'm not fucking disagreeing with you on that, get that through your thick skull.
Sciene is not in the words, but in the concepts. I may use slightly different words and explain it in a different manner, because I like simplicity ... and certain individuals have difficulty understanding the basics of science.
A scientific theory is superior to scientific fact. Yes, anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific theory, which means that is has far more weight than a scientific fact alone.
(EDIT)
[quote user=proofinlife]proven planetary cycles as also contributing in a major way to what is going on[/quote]
1) proven to not be a causal factor in global climate change. Burden of proof lie with you to prove otherwise.
[quote]I don't have to prove anything, because I'm not fucking disagreeing with you on that, get that through your thick skull.[/quote]
2) see point 1.
Sciene is not in the words, but in the concepts. I may use slightly different words and explain it in a different manner, because I like simplicity ... and certain individuals have difficulty understanding the basics of science.
A scientific theory is superior to scientific fact. Yes, anthropogenic global climate change is a scientific theory, which means that is has far more weight than a scientific fact alone.
(EDIT)
1) proven to not be a causal factor in global climate change. Burden of proof lie with you to prove otherwise.
2) see point 1.
Don't you think, NASA might have looked into that?
Don't you think, NASA might have looked into that?
Also, if "Tilt theory works into my beliefs perfectly", then can you tell me how it explains the data which has found that most of the HKKH glaciers are decreasing? You said "glaciers are getting bigger in russia" citing this as evidence for your tilt theory... "the Russian glacier growth is happening because of this, and you can't refute because it's happening in plain sight. By global warming logic, those glaciers should be melting, not building mass." So, how do all the other glaciers which are decreasing - the non-anomalous ones - in the HKKH range fit into that belief... perfectly...
Also, if "Tilt theory works into my beliefs perfectly", then can you tell me how it explains the data which has found that most of the HKKH glaciers are decreasing? You said "glaciers are getting bigger in russia" citing this as evidence for your tilt theory... "the Russian glacier growth is happening because of this, and you can't refute because it's happening in plain sight. By global warming logic, those glaciers should be melting, not building mass." So, how do all the other glaciers which are decreasing - the non-anomalous ones - in the HKKH range fit into that belief... perfectly...
Don't you think, NASA might have looked into that?
[/quote]
Wow, just wow, just fucking wow.
Wow..... Wow.
Don't you think, NASA might have looked into that?
Wow, just wow, just fucking wow.
Wow..... Wow.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7KpE_ag0Us[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5LIIYo0ts&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml3zTFqNefI&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
Wow, just wow, just fucking wow.
Wow..... Wow.
[/quote]
You're an idiot.
Wow, just wow, just fucking wow.
Wow..... Wow.
You're an idiot.
[/quote]
don't worry, he thinks everyone should give away 1/2 their hard earned money so their neighbor can sit at home and drink, and beat his wife with whiskey bottles, while you struggle to feed your family..............oh shit, you think thats good too lmao
you complete fucking idiot lol
don't worry, he thinks everyone should give away 1/2 their hard earned money so their neighbor can sit at home and drink, and beat his wife with whiskey bottles, while you struggle to feed your family..............oh shit, you think thats good too lmao
you complete fucking idiot lol
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MZW4_BZfD0&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8WjpCI5oZs&feature=player_embedded#t=108s[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvAlXW3nvwk&feature=player_detailpage#t=7s[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uJBwQp2lh8&feature=player_detailpage#t=13s[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apW3f2lhfOI&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jMkI9S83T4&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B0xhrq0k98[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVU7TAiCIvY&feature=player_detailpage
[/quote]
lol
lol
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cNqaPSHv0&feature=related[/video]
[/quote]
I've been drinking wines. It would come out all garbled and wrong. Like one of Proof's arguments.
I've been drinking wines. It would come out all garbled and wrong. Like one of Proof's arguments.
[/quote]
Its kinda admirable, in the most abstract of ways, you took up Ed's failsword and swung it as hard as you could.
I remember watching ronald emmerich's 2012 for the lulz and still almost throwing up at seeing he used "cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis" as the explanation to his movie. In fact I was kinda reminded of it when I start reading past the doggerland crap. And then I saw you do this:
(it fits in with the new look of the trend)
Its kinda admirable, in the most abstract of ways, you took up Ed's failsword and swung it as hard as you could.
I remember watching ronald emmerich's 2012 for the lulz and still almost throwing up at seeing he used "cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis" as the explanation to his movie. In fact I was kinda reminded of it when I start reading past the doggerland crap. And then I saw you do this:
(it fits in with the new look of the trend)
proof argues purely on semantics... i doubt drinking makes anyone more pedantic..
hey proof! go get drunk!
proof argues purely on semantics... i doubt drinking makes anyone more pedantic..
hey proof! go get drunk!
Its kinda admirable, in the most abstract of ways, you took up Ed's failsword and swung it as hard as you could.
I remember watching ronald emmerich's 2012 for the lulz and still almost throwing up at seeing he used "cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis" as the explanation to his movie. In fact I was kinda reminded of it when I start reading past the doggerland crap. And then I saw you do this:
(it fits in with the new look of the trend)
[/quote]
Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis? No. That's 2012'er shit right there. That's more up wolffe's or otester's alley.
The earth wobbles, and that wobble takes 41,000 years to complete one tilt. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is proven science, and basic fucking knowledge from elementary school, which is why I was so completely flabbergasted that everyone just dismisses natural tilt so easily, it's basic understanding of how the world works. The earth is not perfectly round and will inherently wobble on it's axis as it traverses it's orbit around the sun and the orbit reaches it's epigee or whatever it's called, the True North inherently moves with it. If anyone wants to refute that, that's fine, but then I'll start having to throw fecal matter right back at 'em.
Its kinda admirable, in the most abstract of ways, you took up Ed's failsword and swung it as hard as you could.
I remember watching ronald emmerich's 2012 for the lulz and still almost throwing up at seeing he used "cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis" as the explanation to his movie. In fact I was kinda reminded of it when I start reading past the doggerland crap. And then I saw you do this:
(it fits in with the new look of the trend)
Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis? No. That's 2012'er shit right there. That's more up wolffe's or otester's alley.
The earth wobbles, and that wobble takes 41,000 years to complete one tilt. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is proven science, and basic fucking knowledge from elementary school, which is why I was so completely flabbergasted that everyone just dismisses natural tilt so easily, it's basic understanding of how the world works. The earth is not perfectly round and will inherently wobble on it's axis as it traverses it's orbit around the sun and the orbit reaches it's epigee or whatever it's called, the True North inherently moves with it. If anyone wants to refute that, that's fine, but then I'll start having to throw fecal matter right back at 'em.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVkmq3yov78&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
back on topic...
back on topic...
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6bPHFhOw4U&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYjY3UqE1t0&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOoTucNNQ2A&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxJvqnYPQfM&feature=player_embedded[/video]
hoo motherfucking rah
hoo motherfucking rah
The earth wobbles, and that wobble takes 41,000 years to complete one tilt. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is proven science, and basic fucking knowledge from elementary school, which is why I was so completely flabbergasted that everyone just dismisses natural tilt so easily, it's basic understanding of how the world works. The earth is not perfectly round and will inherently wobble on it's axis as it traverses it's orbit around the sun and the orbit reaches it's epigee or whatever it's called, the True North inherently moves with it. If anyone wants to refute that, that's fine, but then I'll start having to throw fecal matter right back at 'em.
[/quote]
There you go with that ed logic again. As if anyone were arguing that.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that human emissions are not the primary driver of the current warming trend, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Good luck with that.
The earth wobbles, and that wobble takes 41,000 years to complete one tilt. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is proven science, and basic fucking knowledge from elementary school, which is why I was so completely flabbergasted that everyone just dismisses natural tilt so easily, it's basic understanding of how the world works. The earth is not perfectly round and will inherently wobble on it's axis as it traverses it's orbit around the sun and the orbit reaches it's epigee or whatever it's called, the True North inherently moves with it. If anyone wants to refute that, that's fine, but then I'll start having to throw fecal matter right back at 'em.
There you go with that ed logic again. As if anyone were arguing that.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that human emissions are not the primary driver of the current warming trend, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Good luck with that.
And if it's "ed logic", disprove proven fact, go ahead. "Good luck with that".
Anyhoo, this thread has gotten ridiculous, I'll let you talk to yourself from this point forward.
And if it's "ed logic", disprove proven fact, go ahead. "Good luck with that".
Anyhoo, this thread has gotten ridiculous, I'll let you talk to yourself from this point forward.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8WjpCI5oZs&feature=player_embedded#t=108s[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvAlXW3nvwk&feature=player_detailpage#t=7s[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uJBwQp2lh8&feature=player_detailpage#t=13s[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apW3f2lhfOI&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6bPHFhOw4U&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYjY3UqE1t0&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOoTucNNQ2A&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxJvqnYPQfM&feature=player_embedded[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQmjaeQuOOk&feature=related[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVkmq3yov78&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnQdf1mJneM&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cNqaPSHv0&feature=related[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B0xhrq0k98[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5LIIYo0ts&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml3zTFqNefI&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAg3ZTEfOe4[/video]
i told you faggots this is now a horsepower thread. now look what you made me do
i told you faggots this is now a horsepower thread. now look what you made me do
[/quote]
And I asked you to name them.
[quote user=proofinlife]
And if it's "ed logic", disprove proven fact, go ahead. "Good luck with that".
[/quote]
Are you really this thick?
[quote user=proofinlife]
Anyhoo, this thread has gotten ridiculous, I'll let you talk to yourself from this point forward.
[/quote]
Well I'm sure that "fits into your beliefs" better...
And I asked you to name them.
And if it's "ed logic", disprove proven fact, go ahead. "Good luck with that".
Are you really this thick?
Anyhoo, this thread has gotten ridiculous, I'll let you talk to yourself from this point forward.
Well I'm sure that "fits into your beliefs" better...
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8WjpCI5oZs&feature=player_embedded#t=108s[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvAlXW3nvwk&feature=player_detailpage#t=7s[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uJBwQp2lh8&feature=player_detailpage#t=13s[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apW3f2lhfOI&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6bPHFhOw4U&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYjY3UqE1t0&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOoTucNNQ2A&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxJvqnYPQfM&feature=player_embedded[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQmjaeQuOOk&feature=related[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVkmq3yov78&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnQdf1mJneM&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cNqaPSHv0&feature=related[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B0xhrq0k98[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5LIIYo0ts&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml3zTFqNefI&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAg3ZTEfOe4[/video]
[/quote]
It is the area between Britain & the mainland, that was above sea level 10 -12,000 years ago...
Google it.
You will find this, along with much more... :
"During the most recent glaciation, the Last Glacial Maximum that occurred around 18,000 years ago, the North Sea and almost all of the British Isles were covered with glacial ice and the sea level was about 120 m (390 ft) lower than it is today. After that the climate became warmer and during the Late Glacial Maximum much of the North Sea and English Channel was an expanse of low-lying tundra, extending around 12,000 BCE as far as the modern northern point of Scotland.[4]"
Note that it says, "SEA LEVELS WERE 390 ft LOSWER" than today. & after that the CLIMATE BECAME WARMER
It is the area between Britain & the mainland, that was above sea level 10 -12,000 years ago...
Google it.
You will find this, along with much more... :
"During the most recent glaciation, the Last Glacial Maximum that occurred around 18,000 years ago, the North Sea and almost all of the British Isles were covered with glacial ice and the sea level was about 120 m (390 ft) lower than it is today. After that the climate became warmer and during the Late Glacial Maximum much of the North Sea and English Channel was an expanse of low-lying tundra, extending around 12,000 BCE as far as the modern northern point of Scotland.[4]"
Note that it says, "SEA LEVELS WERE 390 ft LOSWER" than today. & after that the CLIMATE BECAME WARMER
Yes, it must have been the smoke given off by Fred & Barney's feet when they braked... You know - man-made warming...
Yes, it must have been the smoke given off by Fred & Barney's feet when they braked... You know - man-made warming...
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
[/quote]
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?[/quote]
"Ahem"...
^
'Doggerland' = scientific proof. I thought you believed in science. Now who's an idiot?
Scientific proof of what? This is like the thousandth time you've brought it up btw, which is surely scientific proof that you're an idiot. You appear to be arguing (again) that the climate has changed naturally over time and that the existence of Doggerland is proof. Of all the ridiculous strawman arguments this really takes the biscuit. Yoiu take a point that absolutely no one has ever disagreed with and cite as evidence something which was discovered long after consensus was established on the matter anyway?
So I'll ask again. There are many factors that have forced natural climate change in the past. If this is part of a natural warming cycle, what precisely is driving it?
"Ahem"...
:cheers