# What is an "ice age?"



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

The "warmers" have been busy revising history to fit their pathetic excuse of a theory into history.  It ain't workin'...

We have all the data today right in front of us to understand "ice ages" and their parameters on Earth.

What is an "ice age?"

To the warmers, it is a time where everything just freezes because of minor trace atmospheric gas fluctuations.  Ice sheets come and go because of this...

Laughable.

What does the DATA of TODAY suggest?

1. ice ages are continent specific - why? because ice that gets pushed over ocean water will respond to wind, current and seasonal temperature change stress and BREAK OFF in the form of ICEBERGS.  That is why 97% of Earth ice is on the two land masses closest to an Earth pole - because ice ages DO NOT FREEZE OCEANS FULL OF SALT WATER - duh....

2. ice ages start when tectonics moves land to within 600 miles or so of an Earth pole.  As land gets closer to the pole, winters get longer and colder, and summers shorter.  Eventually, as what happened on NW moving Greenland about a million years ago, is that the annual snowfall ceases to fully melt during the summer.  Then next year's snow STACKS ON TOP OF LAST YEAR's.  That is the start of your ice age, that STACKING.  All Greenland and Antarctica do is STACK ICE in the form of an annual ice core and respond to forces, mostly gravity. 

3. ice ages end when land moves away from the pole .... 'cause it gets warmer then... duh


THE DATA

1. 97% of Earth ice on two continent specific ice ages of today - Antarctica 90% and Greenland 7%
2. Greenland's ice age is extremely young, under a million years old
3. the discrepancy between the Arctic and the Antarctic (50F colder, puts 9 times ice into oceans etc.) defines the parameters of Earth climate change - two polar oceans = Earth has NO ICE
4. one million years ago, the North American Ice Age had glaciers down through Indiana, while Greenland was a forest.  Hence, with CO2 constant, Greenland froze while North America thawed, proving ice ages are continent specific and CO2 has nothing to do with Earth climate change


Where the "experts" are wrong. 

1. Antarctica had much more ice millions of years ago because the southern part of South America was glaciated then

reality - Antarctica and South America broke off from Pangea 125 million years ago attached, and only recently (20-50 million years ago) separated. While Antarctica and South America were attached, Antarctica went into ice age, and that ice age glacier pushed into South America over LAND.  South America is now moving NW tectonically, and the southern tip has long since moved out of "ice age" territory.  The oceans never froze down there, and do not freeze now despite enormous continuing growth of ice on Antarctica, which now by itself dwarfs what was on both Antarctica and South America when the separation occurred. 

2. ice ages come and go quickly -

reality - laughable.  Ice cores are printed annually.  If an ice age glacier has 500k years of ice cores, then it is older than 12k years....

While "moving at a glacial pace" is faster than plate tectonics, it is still a lot slower than the Tippys want us to believe (ie FEAR).

3. ice ages change the planet's temperature

Correct, but that's the driver, the ice age, not the temperature.  Ice formation pushes down temperature.  The more ice Earth has, both acreage and volume, the colder Earth gets.  If you switched Antarctica and an equal amount of ocean space in the center of the Pacific, sea level would rise, and Earth would be warmer.  Co2 has nothing to do with it

4. CO2 causes climate change

There is precisely no evidence of this - none in the ice cores, and none in the highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons


Earth climate change is 95% plus about WHERE LAND IS


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 27, 2016)

Depends. An ice age is a glacial episode where everything is frozen where it doesnt normally occur. For example if Texas stayed frozen with glaciers for twenty years that would be called an ice age in Texas.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> For example if Texas stayed frozen with glaciers for twenty years that would be called an ice age in Texas.




What I'm trying to explain is that, to get Texas to freeze under ice age glacier, you'd need to move Texas closer to an Earth pole... 'cause it ain't happening where it is now.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > For example if Texas stayed frozen with glaciers for twenty years that would be called an ice age in Texas.
> ...


Not true. The climate could change and freeze not only Texas but the entire North american land mass.  It has happened before.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> The climate could change and freeze not only Texas but the entire North american land mass.




The ScyFy Channel is not a reliable source of climate truth... nor is any Algorian movie.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > The climate could change and freeze not only Texas but the entire North american land mass.
> ...


You are not a reliable or credible source of climate truth.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jul 27, 2016)




----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Warmer strategy"

1. censor... questions like why does the Antarctic Circle have 9 times the ice of the other
2. cherry pick, fudge, and fraud
3. attack the "truthers" mercilessly


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The "warmers" have been busy revising history to fit their pathetic excuse of a theory into history.  It ain't workin'...
> 
> We have all the data today right in front of us to understand "ice ages" and their parameters on Earth.
> 
> ...




Why are you so stuck on tectonics?

It is one of the main reasons it happens. But not what you think...it's when continents arrange them selfs to block passage of warm water from the equator to the poles.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

tectonics fully explains THE DATA

Nothing else does.

Greenland froze in the past million years despite clear water lanes for Equator water to rush up to the North Pole.  Currents can affect local climate, but really do not change planetary climate - only ice ages and "acts of God" do.


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Warmer strategy"
> 
> 1. censor... questions like why does the Antarctic Circle have 9 times the ice of the other
> 2. cherry pick, fudge, and fraud
> 3. attack the "truthers" mercilessly


I get it now. You're one of those illiterate deniers.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDumbkopf totally knows everything, and those people that have spent decades studying glaciers and polar areas just don't know a thing. LOL

Ever hear of Milankovic Cycles, Dumbkopf? How about the Permian when there was land at both poles and was one of the warmest periods in geological history.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 28, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> I get it now. You're one of those illiterate deniers.




Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?

Calling someone illiterate?

When you cannot answer that question, check the mirror for the PARROT who cannot think...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Ever hear of Milankovic Cycles, Dumbkopf? How about the Permian when there was land at both poles and was one of the warmest periods in geological history.




LOL!!!

Document that - land on both poles...


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > I get it now. You're one of those illiterate deniers.
> ...


Thats a dumb question. Its because of the environment stupid. The Antarctic is surrounded by mostly oceans so there is lots of moisture and snow which forms more ice than the Arctic which is surrounded by land.

Yes you are illiterate. Did you really think that was a hard question?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 28, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> The Antarctic is surrounded by mostly oceans so there is lots of moisture and snow which forms more ice than the Arctic which is surrounded by land.




LMFAO!!!!

Hint - 90% of Earth ice on landmass Antarctica
            7% of Earth ice on landmass Greenland


Now try again....


----------



## mamooth (Jul 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> tectonics fully explains THE DATA
> 
> Nothing else does.



No. Your theory is demonstrably stupid, as has been explained to you over and over. However, you'll ignore the data and keep pushing your loopy fraud, because such open fudging is all you're capable of.

I pointed out that Greenland is part of the North American plate, and moves with North America, therefore it's retarded to claim Greenland moves independently.

I pointed out that in the last million years, the North American plate has drifted 100 miles to the WSW, having essentially no effect on climate.

Rather than address that, you ignored it.

This will be where you scream insults and run away, like you always do.

Please proceed.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ever hear of Milankovic Cycles, Dumbkopf? How about the Permian when there was land at both poles and was one of the warmest periods in geological history.
> ...









Google
q=positions+of+the+the+continents+in+the+permian+period&biw=1242&bih=606&tbm=isch&imgil=4Zolw9sbkzuNeM%253A%253B8yZ3vfOllT7jAM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.britannica.com%25252Fscience%25252FTriassic-Period&source=iu&pf=m&fir=4Zolw9sbkzuNeM%253A%252C8yZ3vfOllT7jAM%252C_&usg=__1P4QQwP4yxeWvcwDfuuGDfxDFos%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjVx_y14ZbOAhUP1WMKHRMxBCsQyjcILg&ei=QEuaV9WnF4-qjwOT4pDYAg#imgrc=nuCmjo8jqjAcfM%3A






*Another warm period, immediatly following the PT extinction. *


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 28, 2016)

Dang....do I get a kick out of watching how much this new forum member Ledexter has caused significant angst and mental meltdowns amongst the AGW alarmist regulars in here.........I mean, some real head explosion events going on if you are watching closely.

Why?

Because the alarmists are getting pwned on substance...........they hate that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 28, 2016)

LaDumbkopf hardly causes angst. But he does put such stupid and baseless lies out there that they must be shown for what they are. 

Ice ages are pretty well understood now. Milankovic Cycles, the flucuation of CO2  levels that creates, the evidence for these has been well established. The role of CO2 as a GHG has long been understood by physicists. Only the politically driven deny this. And the predictions of the scientists concerning what would happen as we increased the GHG levels, are becoming evident in the weather we are seeing on a decadel level.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 28, 2016)

IDK....when I see posts with lots and lots of anger and personal attacks, its sorta a sign that somebody is making a fool our of somebody else!! I mean think about it........when you are confident in your position, that's not the way you respond!!! Everybody knows that.

Just have noticed a pronounced level of public misery when people are responding to Ledexter's posts.....actual rage in some posts........making the alarmist positions look decidedly weak!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 28, 2016)

IDK.....I wouldn't spend a damn minute in this forum except for the fact that Im laughing ALL THE TIME!! If I was getting all stressed out and angry all the time, Id be so outta here!!


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 28, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> Dang....do I get a kick out of watching how much this new forum member Ledexter has caused significant angst and mental meltdowns amongst the AGW alarmist regulars in here.........I mean, some real head explosion events going on if you are watching closely.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because the alarmists are getting pwned on substance...........they hate that.


Its more like the dummy causes me to laugh at him.  

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum


"*Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum*
_Editor’s note:* Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. *While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice._
"


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 28, 2016)

NO really but you look back through this thread..........the alarmists are getting embarrassed. They are posting up all this technical mumbo-jumbo crap and Ledexter is posting up very simple facts and laughing as he does it. The alarmist members might be taking bows, but anybody coming in here as a casual observer is being smacked across the face  and thinking, *"SHIT......THESE PEOPLE ARE A RELIGION!!"
*
idk? Don't get why you'd want to do that?

Who gives a shit about the circle jerk science debate stuff..............in the end, its all about who is winning?


----------



## Asclepias (Jul 28, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> NO really but you look back through this thread..........the alarmists are getting embarrassed. They are posting up all this technical mumbo-jumbo crap and Ledexter is posting up very simple facts and laughing as he does it. The alarmist members might be taking bows, but anybody coming in here as a casual observer is being smacked across the face  and thinking, *"SHIT......THESE PEOPLE ARE A RELIGION!!"
> *
> idk? Don't get why you'd want to do that?
> 
> Who gives a shit about the circle jerk science debate stuff..............in the end, its all about who is winning?


Like I stated before. He should be the one embarrassed. I'm starting to think he may be of such low intellect that he hasnt figured out just how embarrassed he should be. Did you catch that question he asked about ice in the poles?  A third grader could have answered that one.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> I pointed out that Greenland is part of the North American plate, and moves with North America, therefore it's retarded to claim Greenland moves independently.




You apparently still think the Earth is FLAT.  It isn't.  Greenland and NA are moving the same direction - on a sphere.  NA has passed the pole, so it is now moving SW.  Greenland, on the same vector, is moving NW.  

But then, that's not how your rabbi responded, so hate and lie you will


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> I pointed out that in the last million years, the North American plate has drifted 100 miles to the WSW, having essentially no effect on climate.



LMFAO!!!!

Greenland froze while NA thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere... so tell us again how CO2 melted NA and froze Greenland AT THE SAME TIME while CO2 was constant...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





That chart of the "Permian" has almost no land in the Arctic.  That is hardly two polar continents, but nice try...

The accuracy of such speculative charts is laughable, given that the charts of the break-up of Pangea 125 million years ago mostly have SA and AA apart, when, in reality, they broke off together and were one continent for tens of millions of years.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 28, 2016)

On my "air conditioner" analogy, where today's Arctic is set at 1 and Antarctic is set at 9, your Permian chart would be 1 in the Arctic Circle and possibly 6 or 7 in the Antarctic.

Per your chart, Triassic would score 3-4 in the Arctic and about the same, 3-4, in the Antarctic.  Hence, both would produce warmer Earth's than today.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> You apparently still think the Earth is FLAT.  It isn't.  Greenland and NA are moving the same direction - on a sphere.



Greenland is 600miles from the pole at the northern edge.

As it moves 100 miles over a million years, most of that in a westerly direction, it most certainly was not on the opposite side of the pole a million years ago.

That is, you fail complete at geometry, along with everything else.



> NA has passed the pole, so it is now moving SW.  Greenland, on the same vector, is moving NW.
> 
> But then, that's not how your rabbi responded, so hate and lie you will



Antisemitism again? You're a real piece of work.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 29, 2016)

NA is past the pole, Greenland is today where Northern Canada was 40-60 million years ago.

All it takes is that one year where the annual snowfall ceases to fully melt...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> All it takes is that one year where the annual snowfall ceases to fully melt...



That happens every year in Greenland. It's how the ice sheet stays roughly in equilibrium. Ice dumped into the sea by glaciers equals the snowfall that doesn't melt.

Well, at least it used to happen that way. Things are changing. Lots more melt in the interior, so the mass balance has become strongly negative.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Lots more melt in the interior




... of your head.


----------



## Crick (Jul 30, 2016)

Have you noticed that you provide no evidence for your arguments and that when challenged, you have no meaningful response?

We have.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

No, Crick, parroting fudge and running away from real questions is what you do.  Your side cannot explain the data.  I do, by proving CO2 is not anything that affects climate.

Your side cannot explain the discrepancy between the polar circles, where one is much much colder with 9 times the ice.  Your side cannot explain why Arctic Sea ice is melting at the same time Antarctic sea ice is increasing.  Your side cannot explain how Greenland froze while NA thawed during the past million years.  

Your side LIES.  It has NO SEA LEVEL RISE, since 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year since Algore started lying about CO2.  Hence, to con the public into believing there is a sea level rise, it cherry picks island chains on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire and claims those are sinking because of sea level rise, and never notice the tectonics...

LOL!!

Your side is FRAUD.  My side is TRUTH that outs your side's FRAUD.

To quote the great former Mayor of DC Marion Barry - DEAL WITH IT!!!


----------



## Crick (Jul 30, 2016)

Crick said:
			
		

> Have you noticed that you provide no evidence for your arguments and that when challenged, you have no meaningful response?
> 
> We have.





LaDexter said:


> No



Thought not.



LaDexter said:


> Crick, parroting fudge



Is your mother going to punish you if you say "shit"?  You are the most unimaginative poster I think I've ever run into.  You repeat the same phrases over and over and over again.  How many time did you mention that "highly correlated data"?  It wouldn't be difficult to believe you're a program generating posts at random from keywords.



LaDexter said:


> and running away from real questions is what you do.



I have answered as many "real questions" as anyone here - certainly more than you have.  You tend not to answer questions at all.  You tend not to provide evidence.  You tend not to provide links.  Your ideas are unsupported by mainstream science.  They fail numerous sanity and reality checks.



LaDexter said:


> Your side cannot explain the data.



"My side" is mainstream science.  It's THEIR data, asshole.



LaDexter said:


> I do, by proving CO2 is not anything that affects climate.



You don't know what the word "prove" means.  You have proved NOTHING here. Ever.



LaDexter said:


> Your side cannot explain the discrepancy between the polar circles, where one is much much colder with 9 times the ice.



A 7th grader can explain it, you useless dipshit.



LaDexter said:


> Your side cannot explain why Arctic Sea ice is melting at the same time Antarctic sea ice is increasing.



Mainstream science has done and will continue to do an infinitely better job of it than we will ever see from you.  Your "explanations" are a complete failure.  Your "evidence" is nothing more than your personal fantasy.



LaDexter said:


> Your side cannot explain how Greenland froze while NA thawed during the past million years.



You have yet to show us a single source for this claim.  Not one.
Explain to us the weather in Bermuda and the Azores.



LaDexter said:


> Your side LIES.



No, it does not.  Of course, that makes YOU a liar.



LaDexter said:


> It has NO SEA LEVEL RISE, since 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year since Algore started lying about CO2.



And so you believe the direct tide gauge and satellite altimetry measurements that show it is are... what?



LaDexter said:


> Hence, to con the public into believing there is a sea level rise, it cherry picks island chains on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire and claims those are sinking because of sea level rise, and never notice the tectonics...



Wow...  You give stupid a bad name dude.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> How many time did you mention that "highly correlated data"?




The decision by your fudgebaking heroes to FUDGE the raw data from satellites and balloons is one of the FRAUD's "big moments" = is the public too STUPID to notice??

General and important science issue here.  When scientists have two and only two measures of the same thing, and both measures read similar data that is highly correlated, does an honest scientist accept that data?

A: affirmative - no reason to question that data

Why did the warmers FUDGE that data then?

A: because if we document that increasing atmospheric CO2 hasn't warmed the atmosphere, there would be no reason for the US taxpayer to fund Crick's fraudulent heroes any more...


"Global Warming" = ascribing Earth climate change to CO2, is complete FRAUD, and the fudging of the atmospheric data is ground zero of the FRAUD


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> A 7th grader can explain it, you useless dipshit.



Then YOU explain it.

Right now, on Earth, one polar circle, the Antarctic, has 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic - WHY?


----------



## Crick (Jul 30, 2016)

You've already heard it repeatedly. Why don't you tell us why you think it's some great mystery?  Can you find us someone intelligent stating that no one knows this basic fact?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Find one single tippy toppiest "top climate scientist" who explains why the Antarctic Circle has 9 times the ice of the Arctic - just ONE....


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Start the Jeopardy! music


The Tippys mercilessly censor that question, because to answer it is to admit CO2 has nothing to do with Earth climate change...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

It is now perfectly clear that the Tippys are re-writing Earth history, inserting "carbon did this and that and the other thing" while lying about extent, duration, and actual ice cover.

Carbon never did anything to Earth except exist.  That is what the ice cores proved in the British Court, and what the highly correlated satellite and balloon data prove about the atmosphere today - NO WARMING despite rising CO2.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> It is now perfectly clear that the Tippys are re-writing Earth history, inserting "carbon did this and that and the other thing" while lying about extent, duration, and actual ice cover.
> 
> Carbon never did anything to Earth except exist.  That is what the ice cores proved in the British Court, and what the highly correlated satellite and balloon data prove about the atmosphere today - NO WARMING despite rising CO2.


Care to cite that British Court? Or have you just pulled another stinky non-fact out of your ass.


----------



## Crick (Jul 30, 2016)

Highly correlated.  Again.

Okay, when you mention the British court, are you or are you not speaking of 2007 case of Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 31, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Care to cite that British Court?




Gladly, since I've cited it here a thousand times already, why not 1001???

Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda



*The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that* _*it is in fact increasing.*_
_*
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
*_
and there you have it.  90% of Earth ice on Antarctica INCREASING, no correlation between CO2 and temps, and your FUDGE side was


*TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL*


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 31, 2016)

Crick, the Jeopardy! music is still playing and will continue to play until you cite one Tippy who can answer

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other???


And when you confess that you CANNOT DO THAT, you owe me and the board an apology and a retraction...


----------



## Crick (Jul 31, 2016)

The question has been answered here repeatedly.  As I stated earlier, any decent 7th grader could answer the question.  The idiocy here is you thinking this is some arcane mystery.

You stated something a little earlier that I figured was the case.  Your idiocy is home  grown.  These ideas are all your own.  No one shares them with you.  

That you should think that's a good thing is pretty much all there is to say here.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> No one shares them with you.




Parroting = proof

An individual who thinks and gets the right answer that refutes Crick's parroting = "idiocy"


Meanwhile, Crick essentially admits here that the Tippy Toppiest "top climate scientists" do not even attempt to answer the first question of Earth climate change - why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2016)

Who is more likely to be correct?  LaDexter, who comes up with ideas based solely on what lies in LaDexter's head, or the world's trained, degreed scientists, who conduct research and publish their work in peer reviewed journals?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> LaDexter, who comes up with ideas based solely on what lies in LaDexter's head, or the world's trained, degreed scientists, who conduct research and publish their work in peer reviewed journals?




More precisely, :LaDexter fully explains the data, while the Tippy Toppiests fudge the data, lie, and get busted lying.

Exhibit A = sea level rise

The Tippys claim the sea level is rising.  LaDexter says "show us some evidence of this."  The Tippys produce three island chains that are sinking.  LaDexter notices all three are on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire.

Crick wants you to parrot.

LaDexter wants you to think.

LaDexter explains why Arctic Sea ice is shrinking while Antarctic Sea Ice is growing.  The Tippys give their standard BS reason why the Arctic Sea ice is shrinking = "global" warming, and then sit there picking their taxpayer funded rears spinning as to why Antarctic Sea Ice is growing...


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Care to cite that British Court?
> ...




You have not "cited" that court case a thousand times.  Including this post, you have cited it zero times.  This is not a citation.  It is an ignorant article about the case.  The cartoon might have been the tip-off.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> It is an ignorant article about the case.




LMFAO!!!


Anything that validates that Crick's taxpayer funded left wing liar heroes have lied and lied and lied about whether or not 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica is growing, well, Crick doesn't like it.  Crick wants you to believe the Tippy fudge about Antarctica melting.  Crick doesn't care whether it is true or not.  

The article correctly CITES the CONCLUSIONS of the Court, that Antarctic ice is GROWING and that the ancient ice cores show no correlation between CO2 and temperature.  Crick's heroes were TOO CHICKEN to appeal, preferring to rely upon the biased and bigoted "media coverage" of the issue, which spins the court's conclusions as something other than being FATAL to the theory of CO2 inspired "warming."

If 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica is GROWING, is the sea level rising???

Start the Jeopardy! music


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> LaDexter, who comes up with ideas based solely on what lies in LaDexter's head, or the world's trained, degreed scientists, who conduct research and publish their work in peer reviewed journals?





LaDexter said:


> More precisely, :LaDexter fully explains the data, while the Tippy Toppiests fudge the data, lie, and get busted lying.



You haven't explained shite.  You've babbled some nonsense, you've made several gross and egregious errors and you've demonstrated your ignorance.



LaDexter said:


> Exhibit A = sea level rise
> 
> The Tippys claim the sea level is rising.  LaDexter says "show us some evidence of this."  The Tippys produce three island chains that are sinking.



Mainstream science does not claim that we know global sea level is rising because the Marshall Islands are being submerge by it.  They claim that we know global sea level is rising because global measures by tide gauges and satellite altimetry show that is the case.  You've been shown the graph below or something like it on numerous occasions, yet you still claim that your contention that the Marshall Islands are on the lip of a subduction zone (false) is proof that sea level is not rising. You are ignoring the actual data and arguing against a red herring.











LaDexter said:


> LaDexter notices all three are on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire.



In which LaDexter is demonstrably incorrect, has been so informed, yet still claims this to be the case.



LaDexter said:


> Crick wants you to parrot.
> 
> LaDexter wants you to think.



LaDexter seems to believe he is the only person on the entire planet capable of thinking clearly enough to come to a logical, justified conclusion.  I suggest that is not actually the case.



LaDexter said:


> LaDexter explains why Arctic Sea ice is shrinking while Antarctic Sea Ice is growing.



No, you have not. 



LaDexter said:


> The Tippys give their standard BS reason why the Arctic Sea ice is shrinking = "global" warming, and then sit there picking their taxpayer funded rears spinning as to why Antarctic Sea Ice is growing...



No, they have not.

As far as I can see here, you are nothing but an unmitigated, inveterate troll.


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2016)

LaDexter, explain the tide gauge data.

Explain the satellite altimetry.

Explain why the ocean would not be expanding from the steric effects of its increasing temperature.


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2016)

NSIDC




University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign




ibid





Your claim that the expansion of the Antarctic you believe is taking place means the global snow and ice extents must also be expanding, illustrates that you are unwilling to examine your memes.  It would be very easy for the Antarctic to be gaining ice mass but the world as a whole to be losing it.  And since Zwally is STILL the only published scientist who believe the Antarctic mass balance is positive and since Zwally himself says  “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out” and  “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming”, YOUR intrerpretation of what's going on seems to be pure shite.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Mainstream science does not claim that we know global sea level is rising because the Marshall Islands are being submerge by it.




The Marshall Islands are sinking because they are on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire, yet the Tippys blame the sinking on fictitious sea level rise.  The Tippys lie.





Crick said:


> They claim that we know global sea level is rising because global measures by tide gauges and satellite altimetry show that is the case




Which is laughably obvious FUDGE given the fact that the Tippys have to LIE to "find" a "sinking island."


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

All you need to know about snow from Crick's latest FUDGE chart is that NYC, Philly, Boston, and DC have all set ALL TIME RECORD HIGHS for snow accumulation since O took office.

Pass the whipped cream....


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

And the "northern hemisphere sea ice" issue is a CHERRY PICK given non-stop GROWTH of Antarctic Sea Ice....

No matter what the issue is, I have truth, Crick parrots FUDGE, CHERRY PICKING, and FRAUD.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> LaDexter, explain the tide gauge data.  *FUDGE*
> 
> Explain the satellite altimetry. *FUDGE*
> 
> Explain why the ocean would not be expanding from the steric effects of its increasing temperature. - *Oceans not warming, but Tippys are FUDGING*


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Arctic Sea Ice shrinking - growth of Arctic Ocean

Antarctic Sea ice growing - propelled by growing and cooling Antarctic ice age


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Mainstream science does not claim that we know global sea level is rising because the Marshall Islands are being submerge by it.





LaDexter said:


> The Marshall Islands are sinking because they are on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire, yet the Tippys blame the sinking on fictitious sea level rise.  The Tippys lie.



It has been repeatedly demonstrated to you that the Marshall Islands are not on the lip of the Ring of Fire.  More to the point, they are not on the edge of a subduction zone.  Isostatic adjustment to sea level data due to tectonic plate movement and depression and rebound has been commonplace for over a century.  Your claim on this point only indicates your unfamiliarity with the topic. 



Crick said:


> They claim that we know global sea level is rising because global measures by tide gauges and satellite altimetry show that is the case





LaDexter said:


> Which is laughably obvious FUDGE given the fact that the Tippys have to LIE to "find" a "sinking island."



If you actually think that is a valid and overwhelming refutation, you're just the fool I suspected you to be.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> It has been repeatedly demonstrated to you that the Marshall Islands are not on the lip of the Ring of Fire.




And here we have THE FRAUD in its truest form - when busted lying, it keeps manufacturing new lies over and over and over.















Crick said:


> they are not on the edge of a subduction zone.




As everyone can see above, the Marshall Islands are right on the lip, on the side that is going down under.  That Crick and his side are reduced to lying about the obvious truth of the above two maps is where the FRAUD is when properly outed...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Mainstream science does not claim that we know global sea level is rising because the Marshall Islands are being submerge by it.
> ...


you did? you showed the islands were not on the ring of fire?  Where-- post #


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

The last desperation of a FRAUD is always to LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE til the bitter end.

The Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, and the other near New Guinea are all right on the lip of the PROF, and are sinking because of that.

THAT is the only hard "evidence" of "rising" seas, which are NOT RISING because there is NO NET ICE MELT ONGOING on the planet, mostly because 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica is adding at least 80 billion tons of ice EVERY YEAR.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Mainstream science does not claim that we know global sea level is rising because the Marshall Islands are being submerge by it.
> ...


BTW, why aren't any of the seven main continents showing signs of sea level rise on their coasts?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

You are just supposed to say "see, the Marshall Islands are sinking, so the sea level must be rising" and not notice NOTHING ELSE IS SINKING...


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It has been repeatedly demonstrated to you that the Marshall Islands are not on the lip of the Ring of Fire.
> ...



You might at least attempt to find a map that shows both the Marshall Islands and the nearest subduction trench, the Bouganville.  Like this:






Then let's go to Google Maps to get a distance from, say Honjara in the Solomon Islands, to the Marshalls.





1,382 miles.  Yeah, the Marshalls are just sinking in to the Earth.

God are you stupid.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 2, 2016)

Damn, Ladumbkopf's own map demonstrates that the Marshal Islands are nowhere near a subduction zone. Amazing, LaDumbkopf must be on a hallucinigen.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> the nearest subduction trench




What is truly hilarious about the warmers here is just how STUPID to you have to be to believe there are just parts of the PROF engaged in subduction.

This is what Crick and OR want you to believe.  The bottom ocean plate, the one going under, is cut into strips.  Some move and end up under the Earth's crust.  Some strips simply do not move and never end up being recycled.

LAUGHABLE!!!!!!!!!

Just because the PROF is "slanted" by the Marshall Islands doesn't change the FACT that the ENTIRE bottom PLATE is going UNDER, even if it goes UNDER at a SLANTED POINT on the PROF.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


just one question, do you believe that the Marshall Islands are an Atoll? Let us start there quickly.


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

Subduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Find us a comment from someone who actually knows geology that says the entire fucking plate is descending.

The MEASUREMENTS showing UNEQUIVOCALLY that global sea level is rising do not centeer around the Marshall Islands.  They come from thousands of tide gauge records from around the world and years of multiple satellite altimetry records - a point you continue to ignore.

LaDexter, you are an idiot and a liar.

And, of course, NONE of this has anything to do with "What is an ice age?"


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> just one question, do you believe that the Marshall Islands are an Atoll? Let us start there quickly.



Fuck off jc.  You have NOTHING to add to this "conversation"


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 6, 2016)

Once again, crick tries to change the subject away from the truth that the Marshall Islands are sinking solely because they are on the lip of the PROF and not from any BS ocean rise.




Crick said:


> Find us a comment from someone who actually knows geology that says the entire fucking plate is descending.




This is just hilarious.  What Crick is saying is that only part of the edge of the plate is going under, and the rest is somehow... what... being beamed out of the solar system.... merging with the other plate in another dimension??

When the bottom of the Pacific Ocean gets pushed right up to the PROF, it goes UNDER, no matter if the PROF is perpendicular or slanted at the point of contact.  The Marshall Islands are right on the lip of a part of the PROF that slants WNW, while the plate the MI are on is moving W.  So???  Crick seems to be saying that as that intersection happens, the bottom floor of the Pacific does not go under the adjacent plate because of that slant?  because the Tippys are big time fudgebaking liars??

LMFAO!!!

The Tippys have THREE and JUST THREE "sinking" island chains.  ALL THREE are on the lip of the PROF.  ALL THREE.  THREE OUT OF THREE....

Meanwhile, the latest version of the Hawaii 50 show is on the same beach as the old show 50 years ago, and the beach is the exact same beach... with the same sea level... because the Hawaiian Islands are NOT SINKING... because they are not on the lip of the PROF....


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

You've never had a single course in geology, have you.

You also continue to ignore the data from thousands of tidal gauges and years of satellite altimetry that show the world's oceans are rising.  Why is that Dickster?  Aren't you prepared to say it's all fudge?  Don't you have some "highly correlated data" from two pier pilings in Bumfuck Nowhere that show no rise?

You're still an ignorant liar.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> You also continue to ignore the data from thousands of tidal gauges and years of satellite altimetry that show the world's oceans are rising




I don't ignore FUDGE, I just cover it with whipped cream...




Crick said:


> Don't you have some "highly correlated data" from two pier pilings in Bumfuck Nowhere that show no rise?




Your problem is, your side is lying about why the Marshall Islands, the Solomons, and the other by New Guinea are "sinking" but nothing else is.  They are sinking because the Pacific Ocean floor plate to which they are attached is sinking because it is right on the lip of the PROF.  If there were an actual sea level rise, your fraudulent heroes wouldn't have to lie about those three island chains.

Of course, to claim a sea level rise, you'd have to show a NET ICE MELT ongoing, and that FAILS The VERY FIRST TEST, as 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year your side has lied about sea level rise...


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

The Marshall Islands are not subducting.  You cannot find a single source that agrees with you.  Writing off all human science concerning global sea level as "fudge" without an iota of evidence is simply proof that you're a lying fool.

That you should think it impossible for the world's total ice mass to be shrinking even were a majority of it to be expanding (and it is not) is one more demonstration of your ignorance.  Here, see if you can follow this.

I have ten people in a room.  I give nine of them one penny each.  I take 25 cents away from the tenth.  Has the total amount of money among them all gone up or down?

Get it?  And of course that completely ignores steric expansion from the warming you deny despite massive amounts of data many different sources.

God are you stupid.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Marshall Islands are not subducting.



You lie, just like your fudgebaking heroes.




Crick said:


> You cannot find a single source that agrees with you



I do not parrot, you do.  I think.  Land on the edge of the PROF on the "bottom" side starts to sink hundreds of miles from the actual fault.  The Marshall Islands have been sinking for decades because of their position relative to the PROF.




Crick said:


> Writing off all human science concerning global sea level as "fudge" without an iota of evidence is simply proof that you're a lying fool.



Not all of it is FUDGE.  Some of it is FRAUD, the rest is CHERRY PICKING...  Obsessing over Arctic Sea Ice while ignoring Antarctic Sea Ice is CHERRY PICKING.  Claiming ice age glaciers fully advance and retreat in a matter of minutes is FRAUD.




Crick said:


> God are you stupid.



I haven't spent my entire life looking from behind a beak... you have.  You DO NOT THINK.  ALL you do is PARROT.


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

Not one shred of evidence to back up ANY of your contentions.  

I put you on ignore once before and simply ran out of anyone to challenge.  Turning you back on was a mistake.  Your posts are less than worthless.  You don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about, you've got an ego about a thousand times larger than your intellect deserves and you lie with abandon.  I truly hope no one else wastes their time attempting to talk to you about anything.  You deeply deserve to be alone.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > just one question, do you believe that the Marshall Islands are an Atoll? Let us start there quickly.
> ...


this is what happens when someone like you can't defend a position.  Thanks for proving that you have no idea what it is you talk about with islands and sinking.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Subduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Find us a comment from someone who actually knows geology that says the entire fucking plate is descending.
> 
> ...


It's due to the fact that the Marshall Islands are an Atoll.  Look it up lady, and tell the class if I lie about that.  I'm still waiting. 

Oh and when you've completed that, then explain what it is an Atoll is likely to do.  hmmmmmm


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2016)

hey crick,  here some guidance for you:

Atoll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

snippet:

"The distribution of atolls around the globe is instructive: most of the world's atolls are in the Pacific Ocean (with concentrations in the Tuamotu Islands, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands, Coral Sea Islands, and the island groups of Kiribati, Tuvalu and Tokelau) and Indian Ocean (the Atolls of the Maldives, the Lakshadweep Islands, the Chagos Archipelago and the Outer Islands of the Seychelles). The Atlantic Ocean has no large groups of atolls, other than eight atolls east of Nicaragua that belong to the Colombian department of San Andres and Providencia in the Caribbean."

Would you lookie there, Marshall Island, and where is it and what is it?  Oh what an Atoll will eventually do:

snippet:

Atolls are the product of the growth of tropical marine organisms, and so these islands are only found in warm tropical waters. Volcanic islands located beyond the warm water temperature requirements of hermatypic (reef-building) organisms become seamounts as they subside and are eroded away at the surface. An island that is located where the ocean water temperatures are just sufficiently warm for upward reef growth to keep pace with the rate of subsidence is said to be at the *Darwin Point*. Islands in colder, more polar regions evolve towards seamounts or guyots; warmer, more equatorial islands evolve towards atolls, for example Kure Atoll.





Darwin's theory starts with a volcanic island which becomes extinct





As the island and ocean floor subside, coral growth builds a fringing reef, often including a shallow lagoon between the land and the main reef





As the subsidence continues the fringing reef becomes a larger barrier reef farther from the shore with a bigger and deeper lagoon inside





Ultimately the island sinks below the sea, and the barrier reef becomes an atoll enclosing an
See that it ultimately sinks below the sea.  Can you look at that?  wow, everything that was stated happens.  hmmmmmm how is it you doubt that?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> See that it ultimately sinks below the sea.  Can you look at that?  wow, everything that was stated happens.  hmmmmmm how is it you doubt that?



Atolls wear away, shit-for-brains. They don't sink, as you're claiming. If you put a tidal gauge on an atoll and sink the foundation deep, it stays at the same level. The land around it might wear away, but the gauge stays at the same level. Hence, your idiot claim is revealed to be an idiot claim.

As usual, jc, you failed hilariously at grade-school level science. You're simply a profoundly stupid person, no matter what the topic is.

Now, proceed to cry at me, being it's all you're capable of.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > See that it ultimately sinks below the sea.  Can you look at that?  wow, everything that was stated happens.  hmmmmmm how is it you doubt that?
> ...


I posted it you fk

You post up a link to your statement dfk

Oh, and write a letter to Wikipedia and tell they are wrong


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2016)

No, you posted a link that says you were totally wrong.

You and Ladexter seem to be the only people in the universe to claim the Marshall Islands are sinking. Naturally, you've both produced zero evidence for that insanely stupid claim.

That's because there is no evidence. You're both fabricating nonsense. Just hop off of that crazy train. Nobody is buying what you're selling, and it destroys your credibility.


----------



## Abishai100 (Aug 8, 2016)

*Dialogue Dystopia: Dirt Devils*

Is there a 'purely mental' characterization of the causality of the ice age (e.g., urban expanse backlash)?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 9, 2016)

mamooth said:


> You and Ladexter seem to be the only people in the universe to claim the Marshall Islands are sinking




LOL!!!


Life in a disappearing country


"They've internalized the gravest of predictions -- that the Marshall Islands, this loose collection of no-elevation coral atolls, likely will be submerged beneath the waves as humans continue to warm the atmosphere and the oceans continue to rise. They've seen their homes flood frequently -- seen the tides getting higher, seen their lives threatened."


----------



## jc456 (Aug 9, 2016)

mamooth said:


> No, you posted a link that says you were totally wrong.
> 
> You and Ladexter seem to be the only people in the universe to claim the Marshall Islands are sinking. Naturally, you've both produced zero evidence for that insanely stupid claim.
> 
> That's because there is no evidence. You're both fabricating nonsense. Just hop off of that crazy train. Nobody is buying what you're selling, and it destroys your credibility.


what part of the link I provided by Wikipedia was totally wrong.  I posted what an Atoll was and that Marshall Islands/ atoll is an atoll.  And any atoll will eventually sink.  So feel free to paste up the part of the link that I posted that was wrong.  I even posted for ya the snippets and pictures with explanations to how it works.  Are you blind?  Just wondering, I know you are generally confused since you can't make up your mind who you are frequently.

Oh, and as normal not one link from you to back your claim.  hahahahahaahahahha so typical of you.


----------



## Rambunctious (Aug 9, 2016)

Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead

What is an Ice age? we may find out. I think global warming was last seasons obsession...get out the heavy overcoats the science world has changed it's mind again...We have gone backwards. Global cooling was said to be occurring in the 70's.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 9, 2016)

Rambunctious said:


> What is an Ice age?




Antarctica is a 40-60 million year old ice age.  Greenland is an 800k year old ice age. 

Ellesmere Island is also in "ice age" today but not for long...

Ice ages = continent specific


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

Wrong.  Ice ages are caused by Milankovich cycles, not plate tectonics.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Wrong.  Ice ages are caused by Milankovich cycles, not plate tectonics.


Stu, right over your  pea brain. Too fkn funny


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2016)

mamooth said:


> You and Ladexter seem to be the only people in the universe to claim the Marshall Islands are sinking





LaDexter said:


> Life in a disappearing country
> "They've internalized the gravest of predictions -- that the Marshall Islands, this loose collection of no-elevation coral atolls, likely will be submerged beneath the waves as humans continue to warm the atmosphere and *the oceans continue to rise*. They've seen their homes flood frequently -- seen the tides getting higher, seen their lives threatened."


  [Thanked by jc456]

Astounding that two such stupid people, in a universe as large as ours, should be able to find each other.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 14, 2016)

What is "stupid" about noticing the "warmers" don't have any real sea level rise and have to lie about islands sinking per the PROF to cover for it???


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> What is "stupid" about noticing the "warmers" don't have any real sea level rise and have to lie about islands sinking per the PROF to cover for it???



You have yet to address a single word towards the actual rising sea level data, have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that the Marshalls are on the edge of the Ring of Fire or that they are actually sinking into the Earth.  Subduction does not sink entire plates in a single piece into the Earth.  The spreading centers do not produce plate rotation.  Magnetic reversals have taken place on numerous occasions in the planet's history and are recorded in the magma upwelling at those spreading centers. You are attempting to make a geological argument when your knowledge of geology could be bested by most ninth-graders (and I'm being generous).


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> You have yet to address a single word towards the actual rising sea level data,



Au contraire, but it is indeed "a single word" ...


*FUDGE*


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> Subduction does not sink entire plates in a single piece into the Earth.




This is classic.  The bottom of the Pacific Ocean doesn't really go under, just slices of it.  The rest of the plate never moves, and remains on the bottom of the ocean forever.  In time, the ocean has "prison stripes" of where it subducted and where it did not.

MORON.

The WHOLE PLATE GOES UNDER, RETARD.  That you would argue it doesn't is about all your FRAUD side can do...


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

From Wikipedia's article on SUBDUCTION ZONES





*Subduction* is a geological process that takes place at convergent boundaries of tectonic plateswhere one plate moves under another and is forced down into the mantle. Regions where this process occurs are known as _subduction zones_. Rates of subduction are typically in centimetres per year, with the average rate of convergence being approximately two to eight centimetres per year along most plate boundaries.[1]

From Wikipedia's article on CONVERGENT BOUNDARIES






In plate tectonics, a *convergent boundary*, also known as a *destructive plate boundary* (because of subduction), is an actively deforming region where two (or more) tectonic plates or fragments of the lithosphere move toward one another and collide. As a result of pressure, friction, and plate material melting in the mantle, earthquakes and volcanoesare common near convergent boundaries. When two plates move towards one another, they form either a subduction zone or a continental collision. This depends on the nature of the plates involved. In a subduction zone, the subducting plate, which is normally a plate with oceanic crust, moves beneath the other plate, which can be made of either oceanic or continental crust. During collisions between two continental plates, large mountain ranges, such as the Himalayas are formed.

*Descriptions*
The nature of a convergent boundary depends on the type of plates that are colliding. Where a dense oceanic plate collides with a less-dense continental plate, the oceanic plate is typically thrust underneath because of the greater buoyancy of the continental lithosphere, forming a subduction zone. At the surface, the topographic expression is commonly an oceanic trench on the ocean side and a mountain range on the continental side. An example of a continental-oceanic subduction zone is the area along the western coast ofSouth America where the oceanic Nazca Plate is being subducted beneath the continental South American Plate.

If the entire plate sank, large portions of the ocean would be many times deeper than they are.  The subduction is a "BOUNDARY" process.  This is why the result is a trench and/or a mountain range.  Neither trenches nor mountain ranges occupy enitre plates.  They occur on their BOUNDARIES.


I cannot recommend doubling down on stupidity as you seem prone to do.


----------



## Muhammed (Aug 18, 2016)

An "ice age" is when the planet has a covering of ice on a portion of it all year around.

The Earth is currently experiencing an ice age.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

The planet is IN an ice age.  It is NOT in a glaciation period.  And the warming we're currently experiencing is not related to our deglaciation.


----------



## Muhammed (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> The planet is IN an ice age.  It is NOT in a glaciation period.  And the warming we're currently experiencing is not related to our deglaciation.


The Earth is cooling, jackass.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> I cannot recommend doubling down on stupidity as you seem prone to do.




That piece 100% validates everything I've posted.  Just because the fault is slanted doesn't stop any subduction.

You think that cut paste and parrot always makes you look "smart."  In reality, it makes you look like a parrot who never thinks.  Your position on subduction not happening on the slanted fault right by the Marshall islands is hilarious.  

The plate moves = where does it go?  Does Scotty beam it up?

LMFAO!!


That you call anyone else "stupid" would only compare to Hillary calling someone else a greedy liar...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 18, 2016)

Antarctica, Greenland, and Ellesmere Island are in "ice age," which is a CONTINENT SPECIFIC term, and always was....

because the past million years demonstrates that Greenland froze while NA thawed... at the same time with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere..


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

You don't get to invent linguistic usage all by yourself.  Show us a single reputable reference who agrees with your contention that the term "ice age" is "continent specific", as you've claimed here about 20 times, so far without one single fucking shred of evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > You and Ladexter seem to be the only people in the universe to claim the Marshall Islands are sinking
> ...


yep how about that?  Right here.  So is your claim that sea level is rising?  If so, name somewhere.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> So is your claim that sea level is rising?  If so, name somewhere.



My "claim", JC, is that mainstream science is the most likely to be correct on any scientific issue.  Thus when I see that the most widely recognized experts on global sea level say that THIS:






is what the world's oceans are doing, I think that global sea level is quite likely to be rising as indicated here.

And JC, according to Dictionary.com, the term "global" means

adjective
1.
pertaining to the whole world; worldwide; universal:


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Show us a single reputable reference who agrees with



That is what the PARROT seeks, things to PARROT to compensate for a complete and total lack of ability to THINK...

The issue of Greenland freezing and NA thawing during the past million years has been on this board for weeks.  What is under the thickest part of Greenland's ice is 400-800k years old, demonstrating just how young of an ice age Greenland is.  We know the scars at the bottom of the Great Lakes indicate scratches from rocks under 2 miles of ice, 1 million years ago and as recently as 10k years ago.

Greenland FROZE while NA THAWED

and I don't need to PARROT that from one of your sick in the head fudgebaking fearmongers...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> is that mainstream science is the most likely to be correct on any scientific issue




PARROT

PARROT 

PARROT


and then demand PARROTING when PARROTING is REFUTED BY DATA presented by a BRAIN that THINKS INSTEAD OF PARROTS....


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

Then let's see the data that you claim refutes mainstream science.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So is your claim that sea level is rising?  If so, name somewhere.
> ...


again crick, name somewhere that validates your handmade chart. A location, do you need me to post the definition of location on the globe? where's the additional water coming from?  Sea ice?  hahahahahahahahahahaahaha


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Then let's see the data that you claim refutes mainstream science.




Do I have to re-post about Antarctic Ice GROWING from the British Court and more recently NASA???

You smugly ask that knowing full well you've been shown that data, and that your side CHICKENED OUT from appealing the British Court ruling.  

Your beaked BIRDBRAIN claims a sea level rise.  To get a sea level rise on Earth, you need to do something about that one piece of ice that has 90% of Earth's ice on it, and that thing is GROWING... which means your BULLSHIT about sea level rise is just that...

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica growing = no sea level rise on Earth


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 18, 2016)

This board is actually large and diverse enough to do a

1) was it a RECORD WARM year WHERE YOU LIVED??

and when everyone says NO, Crick would post 500k fudge charts and insist it was ....


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Then let's see the data that you claim refutes mainstream science.





LaDexter said:


> Do I have to re-post about Antarctic Ice GROWING from the British Court and more recently NASA???



That Antarctic ice sheets are expanding in area or even that the Eastern Antarctic *might* be adding mass at present (and I wish to emphasize that "*might*") does NOT mean the world's seas aren't rising.  The paper from Zwally is STILL the only one claiming to have observed a positive ice mass balance for Antarctica.  Other papers have come out before ad since that still find the mass balance to be negative.  As to the British court:
****************************************************************
The British Court Dimmock v Department of Education found "nine significant errors".  Those errors were:

1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)

2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.")

3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future…")

4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.")

5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.")

6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)

7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.")

8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.")

9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.")
****************************************************************

Hmm... I must have missed it.  Can you please point out where the judge ruled that the world's oceans weren't rising?



LaDexter said:


> You smugly ask that knowing full well you've been shown that data, and that your side CHICKENED OUT from appealing the British Court ruling.



You've never shown me "that data" because "that" data" doesn't exist.  None of this says diddly squat about sea level rise. 



LaDexter said:


> Your beaked BIRDBRAIN claims a sea level rise.  To get a sea level rise on Earth, you need to do something about that one piece of ice that has 90% of Earth's ice on it, and that thing is GROWING... which means your BULLSHIT about sea level rise is just that...



I've already demonstrated your basic ARITHMETIC failure with this claim.  Apparently, you didn't even realize that was what I was doing.  Crispy, this one is.



LaDexter said:


> 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica growing = no sea level rise on Earth



Sorry, but that is a false statement and ignorantly so.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> The paper from Zwally is STILL the only one claiming to have observed a positive ice mass balance for Antarctica.




And that is truly telling, isn't it, that just one fudgebaking liar is even in the ballpark of the TRUTH of the DATA....


NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses


"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."


And when we went to COURT in 2007....

Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda


*The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that* _*it is in fact increasing.*_
*


*
And there you have it.  When we went to COURT, the DATA talked and the FUDGE walked...

In the world of Algorian FRAUD, all these "papers" say that Antarctica is melting.... melting... but the data NEVER SAID THAT = NEVER.

Antarctic ice has grown every year for millions of years, and will continue to do so, as will Greenland's even though Greenland's ice age is well under 1 million years old...


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> The paper from Zwally is STILL the only one claiming to have observed a positive ice mass balance for Antarctica.





LaDexter said:


> And that is truly telling, isn't it, that just one fudgebaking liar is even in the ballpark of the TRUTH of the DATA....
> 
> NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
> 
> "According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."



"Truly telling" of WHAT?  The problem with Zwally's work is that other glaciologists seem to disagree with his conclusions.  And then there's also the point that it says diddly squat about what global sea level is doing.  Sea level rise is being measured by DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF SEA LEVEL. There are certainly folks making calculations about how much melt is taking place in the Antarctic, in Greenland and in the rest of the world's glaciers and snow fields, but that is not where that UC plot comes from, is it.  It comes from thousands of tidal gauges and the altimetry record of three different satellites.  Do those tide gauges care about what's happening in Antarctica?  They do not.  Do those satellites care about what's happening in Greenland?  They do not.  All they care about is "WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF THE OCEAN IN THIS LOCATION?"



LaDexter said:


> And when we went to COURT in 2007....



We?  We?  You got a turd in your pocket?  YOU didn't go to court and - GUESS FUCKING WHAT? - Dimmock v Dept of Education did not render a verdict on rising sea levels, it did not render a verdict on global warming, it did not render a verdict on anthropogenicity.  It rendered a verdict on the claims in Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth".  Now if YOU think that all of AGW and climate science is based on the material in Gore's movie, you'll set some new records around here for stupid.  Climate science is NOT working from Gore's movie.  Judge Burton's conclusions mean absolutely nothing to scientists working in the field.  Let me repeat: N-O-T-H-I-N-G.  Burton is not a scientist.  He did no climate research.  He based his conclusions on what was presented to him in court.  And the majority of those items have now come to fruition in fact. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has irreversibly destabilized.  The Carteret Islands in the Papua Group have been evacuated. Shakun et al and Marcott et al have both demonstrated CO2-caused warming during the Holocene. The snows on Mt Kilimanjaro are now melting due to global warming.  Lakes are drying up, glaciers are melting, rainfall patterns are changing - all as a result of global warming.  Severe storm incidence and average intensity have increased worldwide.  Polar bear populations are dwindling and the impact of Arctic ice loss is affecting walrus and seal populations as well.  Coral reefs all over the world ARE experiencing seriously threatening levels  of bleaching.  Dimmock and Judge Burton, as it turns out, were WRONG.



LaDexter said:


> *The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that* _*it is in fact increasing.*_



What the everloving fuck are you talking about?  Dimmock took place  in October of 2007.  Zwally et al was published in 2015. There was most assuredly ZERO evidence in 2007 of increasing ice mass in Antarctica.  Let me guess, though.  You're thinking about those drowning polar bears, aren't you.  Well, WhizBrain, guess where polar bears do NOT live?



LaDexter said:


> And there you have it.



Yes.  We have found you're an ignorant lying ass.



LaDexter said:


> When we went to COURT, the DATA talked and the FUDGE walked...



As stated above, there's no "we".  You had jack shit to do with any of it.
The court case was not a judgement on any aspect of AGW and has NO (ZERO) scientific significance



LaDexter said:


> In the world of Algorian FRAUD, all these "papers" say that Antarctica is melting.... melting... but the data NEVER SAID THAT = NEVER.



Over a dozen peer reviewed papers, overflowing with real, actual, measured, observed DATA (the stuff with which you never sully your hands) show the ice mass balance of Antarctica to be NEGATIVE.



LaDexter said:


> Antarctic ice has grown every year for millions of years, and will continue to do so, as will Greenland's even though Greenland's ice age is well under 1 million years old...



So... let me get this straight.  Despite Greenland's ice age being "well under 1 million years old", it's ice has grown for millionS of years.

Global warming only began 150 years ago and only got serious 50 years ago.  What do you think it matters what happened a million years ago?  Did human culture exist a million years ago?  Were the world's coastlines crowded with people and homes and roads and businesses and a million other human structures?  No, they weren't.  We're concerned with what's happening now.  And what is happening now is human GHG emissions and deforestation have led to a sharp increase in the greenhouse gas CO2.  That has increased greenhouse warming and the average temperature of the planet is rising.  That is having significant, harmful effects, including losses of drinking water, crop failures, an increase in average severe storm intensity, increased ocean acidity and a rise in sea level.  All of these issues will continue to get worse for many years even were we to take immediate, maximal action.  Doing nothing is rapidly becoming a non-choice.  Those advocating inaction are endangering the real well-being of human society.  The cost of dealing with this will be in the trillions of dollars over a century or longer.  Humanity MUST abandon the use of fossil fuel and replace it with alternative energy sources.  There is no other option. Period.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> "Truly telling" of WHAT? The problem with Zwally's work is that other glaciologists seem to disagree with his conclusions.




You use the term "glaciologists."  In reality, those "papers" are by the same fudgebaking liars as who cooked the atmospheric temps, the ocean temps, and the ocean level readings.  They are Tippys, fudgebakers, and nobody who practices actual science.

There is no disagreement about Antarctic Ice Growth, or your side would have APPEALED the British Court ruling.


----------



## hauke (Aug 19, 2016)

theres 2 position in this discussion

1. position is trying reason, its giving arguments.
logic. 

2. position is :

i want to use oil and coal and i don t care shit what happens

i don t care shit about logic and arguments

i want to fuck and if you call it rape i say fuck you ill rape you too

thats the 2. position

so its acctually useless to argue


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> You use the term "glaciologists."  In reality, those "papers" are by the same fudgebaking liars as who cooked the atmospheric temps, the ocean temps, and the ocean level readings.  They are Tippys, fudgebakers, and nobody who practices actual science.
> 
> There is no disagreement about Antarctic Ice Growth, or your side would have APPEALED the British Court ruling.



How can you be as stupid as these comments indicate and maintain a roof over your head, feed yourself and operate a computer?

The significance you attempt to place on Dimmock v Dept of Ed is absolutely the most ludicrous thing I think I've ever seen.


----------



## Abishai100 (Aug 19, 2016)

*Decision-Design*

It's all about 'Dianetics perspective.'  Tom Cruise had a lot to do with its social spotlight in recent years.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 20, 2016)

hauke said:


> theres 2 position in this discussion
> 
> 1. position is trying reason, its giving arguments.
> logic.
> ...





Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?

If you cannot answer that question, you know precisely nothing about Earth climate change, and likely never will given your sub 10 IQ...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> The significance you attempt to place on Dimmock v Dept of Ed is absolutely the most ludicrous thing I think I've ever seen.




Two sides went to court.

One side won, the other side lost.

The side that lost did not appeal.


....

....

but still insists it won because it keeps on FUDGING outside of that courtroom...


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

Name the two sides of that court case.  You've never done so.  Who were the parties and what was the question the court was to resolve?  What was the official finding of the court?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> What was the official finding of the court?




`. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica GROWING

No correlation between CO2 and temperature in the ice cores


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

Wrong.  Try again.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What was the official finding of the court?
> ...




Well....there is a correlation between CO2 and ice cores...Ice cores tell us that the is usually a 400 to 1000 year lag between increasing temperatures and increased CO2...that would be due to outgassing from warmer seas that hold less CO2 than cold seas.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 20, 2016)

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’


The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> that would be due to outgassing from warmer seas that hold less CO2 than cold seas.



Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts, more land then can produce plant life, and that makes CO2 go up.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Not the topic at the moment SID.  But if you'd like to help out Mr Dexter, perhaps you could answer the questions I've posed about the court case he seems to think resolved all global warming issues back in 2007.

PS, I think you meant to say there's a correlation between CO2 and temperature IN ice cores.  I do not actually believe there is a correlation between the gas "AND ICE CORES" because the statement is meaningless.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
> 
> 
> The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
> The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.



Bullshit.

Hmm... MRC Newsbusters.  Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias.  Gosh, that's just where I would have gone to get the details on a British court case from almost ten years back.

For starters, the judge identified NINE "inaccuracies" in the film, not eleven.  He pointedly did not identify them as "errors" as had Mr Dimmock's counsel but as "inaccuracies". NO judgement on the validity of AGW was presented by the judge and the ruling had NO effect aside from requiring a guidance note be presented along with the film identifying the nine issues noted below when the film was presented in UK public schools.  The film DOES NOT say Antarctic ice is growing.  It doesn't even say it is not melting (Dex, you might note the time delta between Dimmock and Zwally).  The ruling makes NO mention of CO2 lagging temperature increase, only notes that "Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts." 

From Wikipedia's article on Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills (emphases mine)

*The judgment*
Justice Burton's written judgment was released on 10 October 2007. He found that it was clear that *the film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact*, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme." The necessary amendments made to the related guidance notes make it clear what the mainstream view is, insofar as the film departs from it. The notes also explain that there are views of sceptics who do not accept the consensus reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. *Given these amendments, the judge considered that the film was put in a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views was offere*d and where it could be shown to students in compliance with the law.* Given a proper context, the requirement for a balanced presentation did not warrant that equal weight be given to alternative views of a mainstream view.*

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott,* the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'"* On the basis of testimony from Dr. Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine of the statements that Dimmock's counsel had described as "errors" as inaccuracies; i.e, that were not representative of the mainstream. He also found that some of these statements arose in the context of supporting Al Gore's political thesis. The judge required that the guidance notes should address these statements.[19]

  Those nine are:


Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland.
*Gore's view:* "If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a hundred million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."[20]
*Justice Burton's view:* "This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."[19]
*Other scientific views:* Gore does not say that the sea level would rise 7 metres in the _immediate_ future, though he says that such a rise is a possibility (without specifying the timeframe). The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report predicts that the sea level could rise up to 59 cm by 2100, but excludes any effects from melting in Greenland and Antarctica because of the scientific uncertainties in predicting that scenario. While many scientists believe that neither land mass will melt significantly in the next century,[21] NASA climatologist James E. Hansen has predicted a major increase in sea level on the order of several metres by the end of the 21st century.[21]

Low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean are having to be evacuated because of the effects of global warming.
*Gore's view:* "[T]hat's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand."[20]
*Justice Burton's view:* "There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened."[19]
*Other scientific views:* The inhabitants of the Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea announced in 2005 that they would evacuate the islands and move to the much larger Bougainville Island, as their homeland was expected to be submerged by 2015.[21][22] The cause of the islands' submersion is a matter of debate; a United Nations official suggested that a local fishing practice of destroying reefs with dynamite might be responsible.[23]

The Gulf Stream would be shut down by global warming, causing sharp cooling in northwest Europe.
*Gore's view:* "One of the [scenarios] they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor. At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1,000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah. [points at Greenland]"[20]
*Justice Burton's view:* "According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation orthermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down."[19]
*Other scientific views:* A group of 12 climatologists was surveyed on this question in 2006 by Kirsten Zickfeld of the University of Victoria, Canada. Assuming a temperature rise of 4 °C (7.2 °F) by 2100, eight of them assessed the probability of thermohaline circulation collapse as significantly above zero; three estimated a probability of 40% or higher.[24]

There was an exact fit between graphs showing changes in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures over a period of 650,000 years.
*Gore's view:* "In all of this time, 650,000 years, the CO
2 level has never gone above 300 parts per million. ... The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside."[20]
*Justice Burton's view:* "Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO
2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts."[19]
*Other scientific views:* Global warming episodes at the end of ice ages have not been _triggered_ by rises in atmospheric CO
2. However, this does not disprove the proposition that CO
2 warms the atmosphere and that rising emissions of CO
2 are the principal cause of global warming today.[21]

The disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania was due to global warming.
*Gore's view:* "And now we're beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago."[20]
*Justice Burton's view:* "Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Miliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change."[19]
*Other scientific views:* A 2006 study by a group at the University of Innsbruck concluded that "rather than changes in 20th century climate being responsible for [the glaciers'] demise, glaciers on Kilimanjaro appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them."[25]

The shrinkage of Lake Chad in Africa was caused by global warming.
*Gore's view:* "This is Lake Chad, once one of the largest lakes in the world. It has dried up over the last few decades to almost nothing."[20]
*Justice Burton's view:* The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.[19]
*Other scientific views:* A NASA study released in 2001 concluded that Lake Chad's shrinkage resulted from a combination of irrigation demands and climate change: "Using model and climate data, Coe and Foley calculate that a 30% decrease took place in the lake between 1966 and 1975. Irrigation only accounted for 5% of that decrease, with drier conditions accounting for the remainder. They noticed that irrigation demands increased four-fold between 1983 and 1994, accounting for 50% of the additional decrease in the size of the lake."[26]

Hurricane Katrina was likewise caused by global warming.
*Gore's view:* "And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it. ... There had been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger. There were warnings that this hurricane, days before it hit, would breach the levies and cause the kind of damage that it ultimately did cause."[20]
*Justice Burton's view:* "In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that."[19]
*Other scientific views:* The World Meteorological Organization explains that "though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."[27] They also clarified that "no individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change."[27]

Polar bears were being found drowned after having to swim long distances to find the (melting) ice.
*Gore's view:* "That's not good for creatures like polar bears that depend on the ice. A new scientific study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned, swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before."[20]
*Justice Burton's view:* "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues."[19]
*Other scientific views:* The study in question is a September 2004 paper in _Polar Biology_ which describes the unprecedented discovery of four drowned polar bears in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska.[28] The paper's lead author "doubts this was simply the result of exhaustion from having to swim further from ice to shore. More likely, weather conditions are becoming more severe in the growing expanses of open water, making swimming more difficult."[21]

Coral reefs were being bleached by the effects of global warming and other factors.
*Gore's view:* "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall species loss is now occurring at a rate 1,000 times greater than the natural background rate."[20]
*Justice Burton's view:* "The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1–3°C, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt [sic] or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult."[19]
*Other scientific views:* The most recent IPCC report does indeed state that most corals would bleach if temperatures rose more than 1°C over levels in the 1980s and 1990s. With the current rate of increase, further coral bleaching is considered highly likely. The rise in temperatures is also increasing the incidence of disease in corals, accelerating the rate of bleaching.[21]


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2016)

Yet two pages from now the little twits will be repeating the same lies concerning what the judge said.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> PS, I think you meant to say there's a correlation between CO2 and temperature IN ice cores.  I do not actually believe there is a correlation between the gas "AND ICE CORES" because the statement is meaningless.



Did you find any punctuation or spelling errors?....you will crawl right down in the sewer to feel that you have scored a point no matter how small, or trivially insignificant it is won't you?  You have my deepest pity....congratulations.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> the judge identified NINE "inaccuracies" in the film, not eleven.




This is like the highly correlated satellite and balloon data...

The Tippys (warmers) know that acknowledging the TRUTH of the DATA that Antarctic ice has been growing EVERY YEAR since Algore first started lying is FATAL to continuously bilking the taxpayer with this hoax.

They will lie, deny, make you post the same links 400000 times, and then insult you, change the subject, and go right on insisting that Antarctica is "melting..."


ANTARCTIC ICE HAS GROWN EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST 100,000 years plus.

There is NO EVIDENCE that it hasn't.  Every year the NASA satellite measures it, the ice increases, EVERY YEAR...


NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses


"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."



*EVERY SINGLE LIFE FORM WHO HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT ANTARCTICA WAS DOING ANYTHING BUT ADDING ICE EVERY YEAR IS ENGAGED IN FRAUD, EMBEZZLEMENT, and TREASON*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Wrong.  Try again.


Who's wrong? Ever post your excerpt to backup your claim? Nope.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > that would be due to outgassing from warmer seas that hold less CO2 than cold seas.
> ...



*Or, as land moves away from a pole and ice melts,*

How far did North America have to move to make the ice sheet on top of Chicago melt?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 21, 2016)

Chicago was outside of the Arctic Circle when it melted.  The real issue is where the land is closest to the pole.  If the land mass, NA in this example, moves beyond 600 or so miles from a pole, the "glacier manufacturing" slows/equalizes/stops.   Ice ages require land to be within 600 miles of an Earth pole to "manufacture" ice age glacier.


What happened at the top of Northern Canada is speculative, as all those islands were buried under ice age glaciers 1 mil years ago.  With the Arctic Ocean "coming in" with an active fault in Gakkel Ridge, you have the potential for a lot of magma heat squirting up and doing a lot of temporary melting.  If you've seen the 2005 and 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum photos, you'll see all the melting is over Gakkel Ridge, and the NA side is really unchanged.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Chicago was outside of the Arctic Circle when it melted.  The real issue is where the land is closest to the pole.  If the land mass, NA in this example, moves beyond 600 or so miles from a pole, the "glacier manufacturing" slows/equalizes/stops.   Ice ages require land to be within 600 miles of an Earth pole to "manufacture" ice age glacier.
> 
> 
> What happened at the top of Northern Canada is speculative, as all those islands were buried under ice age glaciers 1 mil years ago.  With the Arctic Ocean "coming in" with an active fault in Gakkel Ridge, you have the potential for a lot of magma heat squirting up and doing a lot of temporary melting.  If you've seen the 2005 and 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum photos, you'll see all the melting is over Gakkel Ridge, and the NA side is really unchanged.


*
Chicago was outside of the Arctic Circle when it melted.*

Is that the only thing that melts glaciers?

*If the land mass, NA in this example, moves beyond 600 or so miles from a pole, the "glacier manufacturing" slows/equalizes/stops. *

The glacier formed when Chicago was less than 600 miles from the pole?


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> the judge identified NINE "inaccuracies" in the film, not eleven.





LaDexter said:


> This is like the highly correlated satellite and balloon data...



You mean another of your absurd lies has been revealed and the rest of us just shake our heads in amazement and pity?



LaDexter said:


> The Tippys (warmers) know that acknowledging the TRUTH of the DATA that Antarctic ice has been growing EVERY YEAR since Algore first started lying is FATAL to continuously bilking the taxpayer with this hoax.



Funniest thing.  We were talking about Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education.  Is there some reason why you don't want to talk about that anymore?  You claimed that the case ended all disagreement about global warming.  Do you still believe that?  Have you yet identified the balloon and satellite data you've referred to over and over again?  CAN YOU ACTUALLY SHOW US DATA THAT INDICATES ANTARCTIC ICE HAS BEEN GROWING EVERY YEAR?  *CAN YOU?  CAUSE YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT YET.*



LaDexter said:


> They will lie, deny, make you post the same links 400000 times, and then insult you, change the subject, and go right on insisting that Antarctica is "melting..."



To paraphrase you, 400000 times zero is still zero.



LaDexter said:


> ANTARCTIC ICE HAS GROWN EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST 100,000 years plus.



And you have some data to show that?



LaDexter said:


> There is NO EVIDENCE that it hasn't.  Every year the NASA satellite measures it, the ice increases, EVERY YEAR...



"There is no evidence that it hasn't"  Wow... now THAT is a sales job of the highest caliber.  And satellite measurements over 100,000 years ago?  Are you and I in the same universe?



LaDexter said:


> NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses



Just checking, but you do understand the difference between ice extents and mass balance, don't you.  Cause, well, you act as if you do not.



LaDexter said:


> "According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."



A quote from Zwally.  His is still the only study to show a positive mass balance - over a dozen other studies found negative mass balances and, as far as anything I've heard, no one in the field agrees with him. 



LaDexter said:


> *EVERY SINGLE LIFE FORM WHO HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT ANTARCTICA WAS DOING ANYTHING BUT ADDING ICE EVERY YEAR IS ENGAGED IN FRAUD, EMBEZZLEMENT, and TREASON*



Life form?  Life form?  If you're trying to get back from La La Land, you're heading in the wrong direction.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


it's too bad the Chicago Tribune wasn't there to log the date. LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...



It was in the Daily News.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


great, let's see the article.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The glacier put them out of business.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


that's unfortunate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yeah, no proof of LaDerpster's stupid claim survived.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so it could have happened.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The glacier over Chicago could have melted because the NA plate moved further than 600 miles from the North Pole?

If you say so. LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


do you know why it melted?  I mean, it seems fairly obvious to me it melted cause of temperatures warming.  You have something different?  Like your smart photons?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*do you know why it melted?*

Usually it takes temperatures above 32 F to melt ice.
*
I mean, it seems fairly obvious to me it melted cause of temperatures warming.  You have something different?* 

It was warming. Do you believe LaDerpster's theory that NA got warm because it moved more than 600 miles away from the pole? Or is that theory the dumbest one since SSDD's "smart photon" claims?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 22, 2016)

So, what you are saying is that, as the NA plate moves SW, that doesn't warm NA?

LOL!!!

The Equator and the poles are the same temperature, right Todd?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I have no idea, nor do you.  If you did, you'd have posted where he's in error.  The fact is, I know the continent moved and since the daily news went out of business and left no archives we'll most likely never know exactly,  It is plausible.

I do know that Greenland is Icy and we're not.  The proximity thingy I think would come into play. Especially since the temperatures confirm it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> So, what you are saying is that, as the NA plate moves SW, that doesn't warm NA?
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> The Equator and the poles are the same temperature, right Todd?



*So, what you are saying is that, as the NA plate moves SW, that doesn't warm NA?*

I would never say such a ridiculous thing.
*
The Equator and the poles are the same temperature, right Todd?*

Wrong.

When the most recent Ice Age started, how far from the North Pole was Chicago?
After the most recent Ice Age started, how far SW did the NA plate have to move to melt the ice?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > So, what you are saying is that, as the NA plate moves SW, that doesn't warm NA?
> ...


*When the most recent Ice Age started, how far from the North Pole was Chicago?*

Has Chicago moved from where it was when the ice age started?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...



A bit.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


an inch?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



A foot?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


600 miles?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



When did the Ice Age start?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...



*Has Chicago moved from where it was when the ice age started?*
_
The Pacific Plate is moving to the northwest at a speed of between 7 and 11 centimeters (cm) or ~3-4 inches a year. The North American plate is moving to the west-southwest at about 2.3 cm (~1 inch) per year driven by the spreading center that created the Atlantic Ocean, the Mid Atlantic Ridge._


Plate Tectonics  | Pacific Northwest Seismic Network

When did that Ice Age start?
How close was Chicago to the North Pole when it started?


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

Chicago to North Pole: roughly 3,000 miles

South component of  west-southwest (237.5 degrees) 38.27%
So, 2.3 cm/yr * 0.3827 = 0.88 cm/yr away from the pole
3,000 miles = 4.828e8 cms
482,800,000 years to make the trip


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Chicago to North Pole: roughly 3,000 miles
> 
> South component of  west-southwest (237.5 degrees) 38.27%
> So, 2.3 cm/yr * 0.3827 = 0.88 cm/yr away from the pole
> ...



Considering the magnetic stripes are due to rift spinning, not pole shifting,
it probably only takes a couple thousand years to make the trip/LaDerpster off


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


which one?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The last one.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Has Chicago moved from where it was when the ice age started?*
_The Pacific Plate is moving to the northwest at a speed of between 7 and 11 centimeters (cm) or ~3-4 inches a year. The North American plate is moving to the west-southwest at about 2.3 cm (~1 inch) per year driven by the spreading center that created the Atlantic Ocean, the Mid Atlantic Ridge._

So basically, LaDexter was correct in the plate movements.  You finally agree with him.  Great, now that is a step.
*
When did that Ice Age start?*
you didn't look it up?
*How close was Chicago to the North Pole when it started?*
closer than today.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you couldn't look it up? your fingers broke?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*So basically, LaDexter was correct in the plate movements.*

I've never denied plates move.

*you didn't look it up?*

You don't know? I found rate of movement. If you find when it started, we can estimate how much closer to the pole, and then you'll see how moronic LaDerp's claim was.

*closer than today*

Unless it was 600 miles from the pole, closer doesn't help Derp's claim.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*You don't know? *

sure, but so do you. I'm not a fking doll with strings.  you wish to know the last ice age look it up and post it.  I don't play those games.  rhetorical shit is boring.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I understand why you don't want to post the info, it'd show the idiocy of LaDerp's claim.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I explained my position.  It would?  prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Say the ice age started 1 million years ago. 1 inch per year, 1,000,000 inches, 83,333 feet, less than 16 miles.
If you adjust for west-southwest, versus south.....even less than 16 miles.

Still no where near 600 miles from the pole. Need more?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


no I don't.  Wikipedia backs your 1 inch per year.


----------



## hauke (Aug 23, 2016)

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?

If you cannot answer that question, you know precisely nothing about Earth climate change, and likely never will given your sub 10 IQ...[/QUOTE]

easy question

the arctic ice is sea ice because the arctic is an ocean, theres no glaciers

the antarctic ice is land ice,  the antarctic continent is a landmass and ice accumulates on it, theres glaciers on the antarctic 4 000 meters high,therefore the antarctic icemass is much higher then the arctic sea ice.

did i pass your test ?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 23, 2016)

So, hauke, some questions.

1. if Earth had two polar oceans, how much ice would Earth have?
2. what controls the amount of ice on Earth, tectonics or CO2?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Say the ice age started 1 million years ago. 1 inch per year, 1,000,000 inches, 83,333 feet, less than 16 miles.
> If you adjust for west-southwest, versus south.....even less than 16 miles.
> 
> Still no where near 600 miles from the pole. Need more?





There exists a latitude, two in fact, where the annual snowfall ceases to fully melt due to lack of solar energy "warming" it.

For Greenland, that point is somewhere around 600 miles from the North Pole.  It is pretty funny to believe that one inch is the difference between ice age and not, but there existed a year when Greenland first had snow that did not fully melt during summer.  THAT was the start of that ice age, and it was recent, under 1 million years ago.  

Sorry to disappoint you, but yeah, 16 miles ago, Greenland was entirely green...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Say the ice age started 1 million years ago. 1 inch per year, 1,000,000 inches, 83,333 feet, less than 16 miles.
> ...



*For Greenland, that point is somewhere around 600 miles from the North Pole.*

Where was NA in relation to the North Pole when the last Ice Age started?
Where when it ended?
*
Sorry to disappoint you, but yeah, 16 miles ago, Greenland was entirely green*

Sorry to disappoint you but moving Greenland 16 miles north will not start a new ice age.
Moving Greenland 16 miles south will not end an Ice Age.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sorry to disappoint you but moving Greenland 16 miles north will not start a new ice age.



Really?  Then explain the data = under the thickest part of Greenland's ice up north, the pine cones etc. under that ice date back 400k to 800k years old.  

Remember too that the further back in time you go, the further south Greenland was, meaning the brainless "ice ages go up and down" BS doesn't float here....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to disappoint you but moving Greenland 16 miles north will not start a new ice age.
> ...



*Really?*

Yeah really.

*Then explain the data = under the thickest part of Greenland's ice up north, the pine cones etc. under that ice date back 400k to 800k years old.* 

Trees grew there when it was warm.
They got buried under snow and ice when it got cold.

How is that proof of your magic ice age theory?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trees grew there when it was warm.



... ie when it was FURTHER away from the pole





Toddsterpatriot said:


> They got buried under snow and ice when it got cold.




it got cold because it kept moving closer to the pole....


That's when you get that "cutoff."  There are, in theory and reality, two lattitudes, one in each hemisphere, where the annual snowfall ceases to get enough Sun to melt.

If the annual snowfall doesn't fully melt, what happens???


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2016)

That plate tectonics simply doesn't move fast enough to have created the known glaciation periods was obvious to everyone else here as soon as you first opened your yap.  That at their peaks, glaciers existed thousands of miles from the poles also shows your 600 mile claim to be complete nonsense.  You just don't know what you're talking about.  I don't expect you to accept that for one second, but EVERYONE here knows it to be true.  Give it the fuck up.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 24, 2016)

There is a difference between mountaintop glaciers and ice age glaciers.  

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica, along with 70 mil year old dino fossils, suggesting 70 mil years ago AA was green

7% of Earth ice on Greenland, along with 800k year old pine cones under the thickest portion of the thickening and growing ice age glacier, suggesting very recent (under 1 mil years) ice age.


That's 97% of Earth ice on two islands... nearest to the Poles.

HHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Who cares about mountain tops?  Sum them altogether and you get a number comparable to the "percent" CO2 is in the atmosphere = next to NOTHING.

Where is the Tippy Toppiest "top climate scientist":"peer reviewed study" on that question, why the AA Circle has 9 times the ice of the other?

Your fudgebaking heroes CENSOR that question, because they know where the answer leads - to the end of their looting of the taxpayer!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trees grew there when it was warm.
> ...



*... ie when it was FURTHER away from the pole*

You think Greenland is moving toward the pole? Gotta link?

*it got cold because it kept moving closer to the pole....*


*That's when you get that "cutoff."* 

Cool theory. So how close was Chicago to the pole when the glacier covered it most recently?
How far away was it before the glacier started to melt?

Let's see your data. Preferably from an actual source........


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So how close was Chicago to the pole when the glacier covered it most recently?



 Chicago was covered with ice age glacier that originated in northern Canada, and moved south.  The top of northern Canada was within 600 miles of the North Pole at the time, perhaps much closer.  

The melting of the ice over Chicago 1 million years ago was mostly about the failure of the top of Northern Canada to stay within that "glacier manufacturing zone."  Hence when that which pushed the glaciers "down" to Chicago got "turned off," the glaciers ceased to grow.  If it melts in the summer and doesn't grow in the winter...


Let's look at where Greenland was, because the bottom of the Atlantic has the "tire tracks..."




 



The "coming in" fault at the bottom center of the Atlantic is slanted between Greenland and Europe.  That is why Greenland froze while Europe has warmed.  Europe is moving SE while Greenland is moving NW, and there is your "vector" above...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So how close was Chicago to the pole when the glacier covered it most recently?
> ...


*
The top of northern Canada was within 600 miles of the North Pole at the time, perhaps much closer.* 

You don't know how close? How do you know it was within 600 miles?
Why isn't there a growing glacier today, moving south from that magic 600 mile mark?

*The melting of the ice over Chicago 1 million years ago was mostly about the failure of the top of Northern Canada to stay within that "glacier manufacturing zone."* 

What about the glacier over Chicago that melted 20,000 years ago?
Was Chicago, or Canada, within 600 miles of the pole?
If not, how did the glacier survive so far south?
*
while Greenland is moving NW*

Link?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How do you know it was within 600 miles?




Charting the exact location of past tectonic plate movement is inexact science to be sure, as the land itself mutates along the way.  The Arctic Ocean is also growing, so it was smaller the further back in time.  The 600 mile mark today is close to Ellesmere Island, which is still in ice age, but no longer attached.  You need intact land for glaciers to grow.  When they go out over water, they break off, which is why ice ages are continent specific.  40-60 million years ago, the top of Northern Canada was where the top of Greenland is today, possibly further north accounting for Arctic Ocean growth.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> *while Greenland is moving NW*
> 
> Link?




Seriously, if you were driving, and the sign said "One Way" you would ask the sign for a link....





Toddsterpatriot said:


> What about the glacier over Chicago that melted 20,000 years ago?
> Was Chicago, or Canada, within 600 miles of the pole?
> If not, how did the glacier survive so far south?




You have a wonderful test case in Greenland, where the ice age originated 600 miles or so from the pole, and pushed ice away from the pole... straight out of the polar circle.  Ice on Greenland extends way south of the Arctic Circle, while on Canada you can grow trees hundreds of miles north of the Arctic Circle.

Think about that before asking for another stupid link.  The warmers do not like truth.  They prefer censorship.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know it was within 600 miles?
> ...



*Charting the exact location of past tectonic plate movement is inexact science to be sure,
*
How fast is the plate moving now?
How long ago would it have been 600 miles from the pole?
*
Seriously, if you were driving, and the sign said "One Way" you would ask the sign for a link....*

Seriously, since the Greenland plate and the NA plate are said to be fused ie moving in the same direction, yes, I want a link that says Greenland is now moving north and how fast.

*You have a wonderful test case in Greenland,*

Fuck Greenland, explain Chicago.
*
Think about that before asking for another stupid link.  The warmers do not like truth.* 

Fuck the warmers, explain your "theory".
How far was Chicago from the pole when the glacier formed and how far when it melted?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Seriously, since the Greenland plate and the NA plate are said to be fused ie moving in the same direction, yes, I want a link that says Greenland is now moving north and how fast.




Indeed, it is the same vector, but it is on a sphere, so unless you want to join with Mamooo in The Flat Earth Society, ask yourself again...

Greenland and NA are moving in the same direction = Greenland is just not past the pole yet.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fuck Greenland, explain Chicago.




Greenland explains Chicago.  You just don't want to admit that.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> explain your "theory".




Land moves.

Land moves within 600 miles of an Earth pole, its annual snowfall ceases to fully melt, so ice starts stacking = start of ice age (continent specific).

As ice stacks, it responds to force, mainly gravity, and starts to move, scraping up everything loose beneath it.  Ice age glaciers start around 600 miles from a pole, and eventually, assuming land to run, will push such glaciers way out of a polar circle, as ice on Greenland is 200 miles south of the Arctic Circle.  That ice got there because it was pushed there from further north.  Notice that nowhere else on the Arctic Circle are there ice age glaciers.  Why?  Because there is no land connecting to that latitude where ice ages start.  You have to START one to get glaciers pushed out of a polar circle.  That's how they got to Chicago, they started in northern Canada and pushed south.

Once you move land out of that "glacier manufacturing zone" within 600 miles of an Earth pole, the new ice accumulation slows/stops.  You still have the ice, but it is no longer a growing ice age, rather a retreating one.  Clearly, Chicago's ice was considerable and took a long time to melt, but it did melt, at the same time Greenland's ice age was not yet on the Southern Tip of the island where the Vikings farmed until 1400, when it froze and remains frozen today...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, since the Greenland plate and the NA plate are said to be fused ie moving in the same direction, yes, I want a link that says Greenland is now moving north and how fast.
> ...



*Indeed, it is the same vector, but it is on a sphere
*
If it's on the same vector, Greenland is moving West-Southwest. Not North.

*Greenland is just not past the pole yet.
*
Greenland is south of the pole, moving west-southwest. You said it was moving North.

Need help reading that "One Way" sign?

*Greenland explains Chicago.* 

Greenland does not explain the distance from Chicago to the pole when the glacier got here
or the distance when it melted.
The plates just move too slowly for your theory to be anything less than a huge pile of crap.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If it's on the same vector, Greenland is moving West-Southwest. Not North.



Earth not flat.  Earth spherical.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Greenland is south of the pole, moving west-southwest. You said it was moving North.



NW




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Greenland does not explain the distance from Chicago to the pole when the glacier got here
> or the distance when it melted.




Let's try to see if you got anything here.

WHY does Greenland have ice age glacier south of the Arctic Circle, when no other piece of land in the Arctic does?

Canada is green north of the Arctic Circle, Greenland is ice south of it.

WHY?

Until you get that, you've got nuttin...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If it's on the same vector, Greenland is moving West-Southwest. Not North.
> ...



*Earth not flat.  Earth spherical.*

West-southwest is further from the pole....the opposite of your claim.

*NW
*
WSW

Were you lying or stupid?

*Let's try to see if you got anything here.*

Great. Post the distances, like I asked you to do, several times.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 26, 2016)

LOL!!!!

You refuse to answer why Greenland has ice south of the Arctic Circle while everywhere else there is plant life north of the Arctic Circle.

This is because, to answer that question correctly, would be to admit I've been completely right about all of the above...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> LOL!!!!
> 
> You refuse to answer why Greenland has ice south of the Arctic Circle while everywhere else there is plant life north of the Arctic Circle.
> 
> This is because, to answer that question correctly, would be to admit I've been completely right about all of the above...



*You refuse to answer why Greenland has ice south of the Arctic Circle while everywhere else there is plant life north of the Arctic Circle.*

You refuse to explain when the most recent ice age began, the distance from the pole when it began and the distance from the pole when it ended.
I understand why you won't give distances, because it will show the idiocy of your 600 mile "theory".

And which direction is Greenland moving now? LOL!


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You refuse to explain when the most recent ice age began




Greenland's ice age began less than a million years ago, and I've answered that plenty.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You refuse to explain when the most recent ice age began
> ...



I'm interested in Chicago.
Distances when the most recent ice age began?
Distances when the most recent ice age ended?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 26, 2016)

The southern tip of Greenland is covered in ice and is nowhere near 600 miles to the Pole and hasn't been near a pole for hundreds of millions of years.

Chicago is like the southern tip of Greenland, which got its ice age glacier cover when the ice age started further north and moved south...

Chicago likely did not get to within 800 miles of the North Pole, but Canada did, and that is where the ice that covered Chicago originated and moved from,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The southern tip of Greenland is covered in ice and is nowhere near 600 miles to the Pole and hasn't been near a pole for hundreds of millions of years.
> 
> Chicago is like the southern tip of Greenland, which got its ice age glacier cover when the ice age started further north and moved south...
> 
> Chicago likely did not get to within 800 miles of the North Pole, but Canada did, and that is where the ice that covered Chicago originated and moved from,



*Chicago likely did not get to within 800 miles of the North Pole
*
It magically was covered with ice when it was further away, why did it magically melt?

When did the glacier over Chicago melt the last time?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And which direction is Greenland moving now? LOL!




The fault in the center of the Atlantic grows every year;  It is slanted SW to NE in the northern part, pushing England and Europe SE and Greenland NW.  It doesn't take a genius to understand that, just the photo...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It magically was covered with ice when it was further away,




.... for the 9999th time, just like the southern tip of Greenland.

CLUE - until the 1400s, the vikings were FARMING on the southern tip of Greenland.  Then it froze, and it is still frozen today.

What then caused the southern tip of Greenland to glaciate, magic "interglacials," or the ice further north moving south...????


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > And which direction is Greenland moving now? LOL!
> ...



Nice photo. Where is your source that says it moves NW instead of WSW?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 26, 2016)

The SOURCE is THE ANGLE OF THE FAULT and the PAST MOVEMENT clearly visible from the photo...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It magically was covered with ice when it was further away,
> ...



*CLUE - until the 1400s, the vikings were FARMING on the southern tip of Greenland.* 

Chicago was covered with ice until how long ago?
How far north did Greenland move after 1400?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The SOURCE is THE ANGLE OF THE FAULT and the PAST MOVEMENT clearly visible from the photo...



Nope. The picture doesn't say NW. And it looks like you can't find a source that does.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 26, 2016)

You seem so very lost here.  The science isn't that difficult.  Let's start from the top, one more time..

The northern tip of Greenland got to that 600 miles from the Pole point about a million years ago.  There, at the northern tip of Greenland, is where the ice age started.  From there, that ice grew and moved.  Think of it as cookie dough.  Take a fist full of cookie dough and throw it on the floor.  Now do that 1000 times, and your cookie dough is covering the kitchen floor and pushing out the door.  That's what ice ages do, they grow and respond to gravity, and every time another layer is added to the top, the additional weight pushes out what is below, which moves the path of least resistance.  For Greenland, the ice age got to the mountain range just north of the southern tip perhaps 200-500k years ago, and grew behind it.  The vikings got to "Greenland" when the southern tip was still green, less than 1500 years ago.  Curious, they went up to that mountain range, and behind it saw only ice.  So, well, everything is cool, the ice is behind the mountains, and we can farm here - no problem.... until 1400s, when that ice penetrated that mountain range and froze the southern tip beyond the ability to farm it.

Ice age glaciers move.

Chicago never got to 600 miles from the pole.  The ice that covered Chicago originated much further north...


Now, try this question.  Greenland's ice is south of the Arctic Circle.  Nowhere else on the Arctic Circle is there ice age glacier.  Many places like Canada have plant life hundreds of miles north of the Arctic Circle.

WHY is there ice south of the Arctic Circle on Greenland and plants north of the Arctic Circle on Canada???

Start the Jeopardy! Music


----------



## mamooth (Aug 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Think of it as cookie dough.  Take a fist full of cookie dough and throw it on the floor.  Now do that 1000 times, and your cookie dough is covering the kitchen floor and pushing out the door.



No, raccoons would show up to eat the cookie dough that pushed out the door, so it would never advance.

Same with Greenland. If the ice tried moving south while temperatures were warm, it would be "eaten" by something, the warmer temperatures. Global temperatures had to drop before the ice sheet could form.



> WHY is there ice south of the Arctic Circle on Greenland and plants north of the Arctic Circle on Canada???



Elevation. The elevation of the ice sheet creates its own cold climate. Because of topography, those conditions didn't exist anywhere else.

And that means if it melts, it can't be recreated unless temperatures get very cold again.


----------



## Crick (Aug 27, 2016)

See the blue period Dex?  Those are glacial periods.  The scale at the bottom is in years.







Thus there have been ten (nine and fraction) glacial periods in the last 800,000 years.  How far have the world's tectonic plates moved in the last 800,000 years?  The North American plate is currently moving at 15-25 mm/year to the WEST.  Let's assume all the world's plates were moving due north and south at that rate.  How far would they go in 80,000 years (roughly the length of a glaciation period).

80,000 * 0.025m = 2,000 meters.  2 km.*  Less than 1-1/4 miles.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> See the blue period Dex?  Those are glacial periods.  The scale at the bottom is in years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're right, he thinks the plates have to move 16 miles to cause an ice age.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> If the ice tried moving south while temperatures were warm, it would be "eaten"




So just how did Greenland get covered in ice?

We know from the history of the vikings that the southern tip was not frozen until the 1400s.  It is still frozen today...

LOL!!!

Were did you get your "science" degree, from Dexter Manley University?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're right, he thinks the plates have to move 16 miles to cause an ice age.




Less than that.  There exists, in the history of Greenland and Antarctica, a year where the annual snowfall ceased to melt for the first time.  That is the start of an ice age, during a period of an inch or so of plate movement, a "first year."


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> See the blue period Dex?  Those are glacial periods.  The scale at the bottom is in years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





This stuff is complete bullshit fudge.

It does not explain the data, like why did NA thaw while Greenland froze during the past million years...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, he thinks the plates have to move 16 miles to cause an ice age.
> ...



You never did explain when the glacier that created the Great Lakes first formed and when it finally melted.
If you did, it would prove your "Ice Ages don't end until the plates drift far enough from the poles" theory is
wrong.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

No it wouldn't, and you are still dodging the question about why Greenland has ice south of the Arctic Circle, which is the planet's one active data point on the subject.

Dodge the question, ignore the data, and post bullshit over and over.  Have you ever applied for a job as a "climate scientist?"  You have what it takes...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> No it wouldn't, and you are still dodging the question about why Greenland has ice south of the Arctic Circle, which is the planet's one active data point on the subject.
> 
> Dodge the question, ignore the data, and post bullshit over and over.  Have you ever applied for a job as a "climate scientist?"  You have what it takes...


*
you are still dodging the question about why Greenland has ice south of the Arctic Circle,*

What's the altitude of the ice sheet in Greenland?
Is it higher than the ice free areas in Canada you're worried about?

*Have you ever applied for a job as a "climate scientist?"*

I mock climate scientists when they say stupid shit, mocking a skeptic like you who has no
clue about science is even easier.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 27, 2016)

*What is an "ice age?"*

When she cuts you off...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What's the altitude of the ice sheet in Greenland?




It is thickest up north, where it started, and thins as it gets further south.


from google


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mocking a skeptic like you who has no
> clue about science is even easier.




You haven't laid a glove on my stuff.  All you've proven is that you do not understand glacial movement, and you think a 757 can fly at 400 mph with its engines in the ground...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mocking a skeptic like you who has no
> ...



*You haven't laid a glove on my stuff*

You haven't backed up any of your stuff.
How far away was Chicago from the pole when the most recent ice sheet covered it?
How far away when the most recent ice sheet melted?

Why so shy?

*you think a 757 can fly at 400 mph with its engines in the ground*

If a 757, flying at full speed, hits the ground, losing its engines, how long will it take the mass of the plane to stop?
Instantly? Or do the laws of physics, you know, inertia, apply?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What's the altitude of the ice sheet in Greenland?
> ...




*It is thickest up north*

What's the altitude?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If a 757, flying at full speed, hits the ground, losing its engines, how long will it take the mass of the plane to stop?




If a 757 scrapes its engines on the ground, it cartwheels.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How far away was Chicago from the pole when the most recent ice sheet covered it?



Within 50 miles of where it is now.  Chicago melted because the ice that covered it came from the north, and stopped coming once the top of contiguous northern Canada moved out of the glacier manufacturing zone (600 miles from Pole).  I have explained that to you at least a dozen times...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What's the altitude?




Less than Antarctica's.  You look it up.  The thickest part of Greenland's ice is about a mile and a half thick, on its way to over two miles in the next few million years...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> We know from the history of the vikings that the southern tip was not frozen until the 1400s.  It is still frozen today...



No it's not.

Stop making shit up. Everyone already knows you're an open fraud. No need to keep confirming it.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How far away was Chicago from the pole when the most recent ice sheet covered it?
> ...




No you haven't.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> See the blue period Dex?  Those are glacial periods.  The scale at the bottom is in years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





LaDexter said:


> This stuff is complete bullshit fudge.



Give us some reason to believe that besides your say-so.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> No it's not.








Um,yes it is....

Story of Viking Colonies' Icy 'Pompeii' Unfolds From Ancient Greenland Farm

"At the Viking site near here, artifacts were locked in permafrost "


According to Mamoooo, permafrosted artifacts are "warmer" than when they were used by the Vikings to farm land that was not permafrosted...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Give us some reason to believe that besides your say-so.




During the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, proving to any reasonable, rational, factual based person of science that Earth climate change is continent specific, not global...


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2016)

I'm sorry, that is simply another unsubstantiated assertion.  I asked you to give us some reason to believe that besides your say-so.  That's a call for EVIDENCE.  For some real expert saying the same thing.  Some scientific studies that who come to the same conclusions based on their work.  REAL SUPPORT.  That it's whirling around in your head doesn't mean anything to any of us Dex.  It's just your head, y'know?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2016)

I'd like to see his proof that the alternating magnetic stripes on the seafloor are the result of plate tectonics causing the seafloor rift to rotate, rather than the magnetic poles reversing.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2016)

These things are all relative: mag poles flipping, plates spinning like tops, same-o same-o.  Of course to produce the pattern seen, they'd have to do a 180 degree rotation almost instantly, then continue spreading as they'd been doing for another 50,000 years before giving us another instantaneous twist.

Wow... what a world we live in, eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> These things are all relative: mag poles flipping, plates spinning like tops, same-o same-o.  Of course to produce the pattern seen, they'd have to do a 180 degree rotation almost instantly, then continue spreading as they'd been doing for another 50,000 years before giving us another instantaneous twist.
> 
> Wow... what a world we live in, eh?



Spinning like a top does make more sense than flipping poles.
It is weird that no spreading occurred half way thru a spin.
And that there is no rational reason for the ocean floor to spin.
Of course rational and LaDerpster have never met.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Um,yes it is....



Not according to your image, which clearly shows the southern tip of greenland to be unfrozen.

So why did you claim the southern tip of Greenland is now frozen, when it's clearly not? Was it stupidity or dishonesty on your part?


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2016)

And look at all that blue meltwater I Photoshopped in there.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> which clearly shows the southern tip of greenland to be unfrozen.




That's not the whole "southern tip," more like 1%.  The Viking farm houses are still buried under ice.  Nice try.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> These things are all relative: mag poles flipping, plates spinning like tops, same-o same-o. Of course to produce the pattern seen, they'd have to do a 180 degree rotation almost instantly, then continue spreading as they'd been doing for another 50,000 years before giving us another instantaneous twist.
> 
> Wow... what a world we live in, eh?




That's another total falsehood.  Once the magma solidifies into rock, the direction of the magnet is set.  If the plate rotates, so does the direction of the magnet.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> that is simply another unsubstantiated assertion




LMFAO!!!!


Nothing is "substantiated" unless Crick's fudgebaking heroes give crick something to PARROT....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > These things are all relative: mag poles flipping, plates spinning like tops, same-o same-o. Of course to produce the pattern seen, they'd have to do a 180 degree rotation almost instantly, then continue spreading as they'd been doing for another 50,000 years before giving us another instantaneous twist.
> ...



*If the plate rotates,*

Why does the plate rotate? How quickly? Any evidence?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 29, 2016)

South America has rotated almost 90 degrees since it broke off from Africa (while still attached to Antarctica).  It is like a leg following through on a kick at the south pole.

Remember, we live on a sphere, not a flat surface....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> South America has rotated almost 90 degrees since it broke off from Africa (while still attached to Antarctica).  It is like a leg following through on a kick at the south pole.
> 
> Remember, we live on a sphere, not a flat surface....



*South America has rotated almost 90 degrees since it broke off from Africa
*
How many millions of years for 90 degrees?
Compared to multiple 180 degree rotations of the sea floor rift over the same period. LOL!


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 29, 2016)

In the ballpark of 100 million years.  Some "estimates" of Pangea have South America almost 120 or so degrees from its current position, which happened because latitude length get shorter closer to the pole.  In other words, the continent travels the same amount, just on a sphere, which "warps" the movement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> In the ballpark of 100 million years.  Some "estimates" of Pangea have South America almost 120 or so degrees from its current position, which happened because latitude length get shorter closer to the pole.  In other words, the continent travels the same amount, just on a sphere, which "warps" the movement.



*In the ballpark of 100 million years.*

Why so long....if the sea floor rift rotates so quickly?
I mean the part up near Greenland has to move all the way down between South America and Africa.
What powers this magic turntable?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 29, 2016)

I never said it rotates quickly.  I just said the case for Earth magnetic pole switching is based on the assumption that every piece of land is pointing in the same direction it was when it was formed, which SA proves is not the case...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> I never said it rotates quickly.  I just said the case for Earth magnetic pole switching is based on the assumption that every piece of land is pointing in the same direction it was when it was formed, which SA proves is not the case...



*I never said it rotates quickly.*

Based on the number of reversed magnetic stripes on the sea floor, it has to rotate quickly for your "theory" to work.

*which SA proves is not the case*

Please explain how SA disproves pole flipping.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 29, 2016)

SA proves plates rotate, and hence assuming they don't rotate and hence the Earth magnetic field must flip to explain the data is false.

The "sea floor" argument is something I am not familiar with.  I thought the theory was meant to explain different magnetic direction of land based "dried magma.:"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> SA proves plates rotate, and hence assuming they don't rotate and hence the Earth magnetic field must flip to explain the data is false.
> 
> The "sea floor" argument is something I am not familiar with.  I thought the theory was meant to explain different magnetic direction of land based "dried magma.:"



*SA proves plates rotate,
*
It doesn't prove they rotate every few hundred thousand years.
*
The "sea floor" argument is something I am not familiar with.*

Sea floor spreading is new to you?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sea floor spreading is new to you?




Nope.  Indeed, you could put the Marshall Islands on your graphic, right between "trench" and "oceanic crust"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sea floor spreading is new to you?
> ...



And when you do that, your sea floor spinning "idea" is still ridiculous.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

Dex, do you believe the magnetic reversals seen in the sea floor plates is caused by the plates spinning or by the Earth's magnetic field flipping?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 29, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> That's not the whole "southern tip," more like 1%.  The Viking farm houses are still buried under ice.  Nice try.



No, they were buried by sand.

Next time, try reading the article you quote. That way, you won't look so stupid and dishonest after you get caught making crap up.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

He's not good at that you know.  He brought up an article from Jeff Masters (Weather Underground) that he claimed showed that "highly correlated balloon and satellite data showed no warming".  Only problem was that was not what it said.  And Jeff Masters is hardly a whack job denier.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sea floor spinning




I don't recall ever saying the sea floor spins.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sea floor spinning
> ...



How do you explain alternating magnetic stripes on the sea floor?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> He's not good at that you know. He brought up an article from Jeff Masters (Weather Underground) that he claimed showed that "highly correlated balloon and satellite data showed no warming". Only problem was that was not what it said. And Jeff Masters is hardly a whack job denier.




That article didn't come clean about the highly correlated nature of the data, but that's the slant of the article.  The article admits what I've claimed, that in 2005 when atmospheric temperature readings from satellites and balloons both showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere, the TIPPYs decided to FUDGE the data, which oh by the way has not warmed since the FUDGING either...

Didn't warm before 2005
Didn't warm after 2005

The only time the atmosphere "warmed" was when the TIPPYs FUDGED the data in 2005.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How do you explain alternating magnetic stripes on the sea floor?




Give me a link about that.  I thought the switching magnetic direction stuff came mostly from land.  I KNOW some of it did.  And land can spin like SA has.,..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How do you explain alternating magnetic stripes on the sea floor?
> ...



*Give me a link about that.*

Again? Okay.

seafloor spreading and magnetic striping


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 30, 2016)

I thought the "theory" was that the fields reverse every 100 million years or so.

That graphic suggests every 20 years or so.  Obviously, it is a graphic to make a point, so 20 years is obviously not right.  How often do these strips on the ocean floor suggest a field reversal?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> I thought the "theory" was that the fields reverse every 100 million years or so.
> 
> That graphic suggests every 20 years or so.  Obviously, it is a graphic to make a point, so 20 years is obviously not right.  How often do these strips on the ocean floor suggest a field reversal?



I* thought the "theory" was that the fields reverse every 100 million years or so.*

Nope.
*
That graphic suggests every 20 years or so.*

Nope.

Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 30, 2016)

So 100k to 1 mil years...

OK

Still not ready to accept, but the ocean floor is a lot more convincing that the land based claims.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> So 100k to 1 mil years...
> 
> OK
> 
> Still not ready to accept, but the ocean floor is a lot more convincing that the land based claims.



So, the options appear to be, the pole flips every 100k to 1 million years, which explains the magnetic stripes, versus your explanation that the stripes were caused by...........?


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2016)

Here is the first of many pages of Wikipedia articles that mention the Earth's magnetic field reversal:



Gauss-Matuyama reversal
Gauss-Matuyama Reversal was a geologic event approximately 2.58 million years ago when the Earth's magnetic field underwent reversal. This event, which
1 KB (84 words) - 23:43, 10 June 2014

Chronozone
identification and analysis by the physical sciences (such as Earth's magnetic-fieldreversals or the location of a combination of chemical evidence in a
5 KB (566 words) - 16:07, 16 July 2016

Nicholas Shackleton
calcareous microfossils. Shackleton also found evidence that the Earth's lastmagnetic field reversal was 780,000 years ago. He became internationally known, in
11 KB (1,119 words) - 13:18, 21 March 2016

Magnetization (redirect from Induced magnetic field)
parent. Permeability (electromagnetism) Magnetic susceptibility Earth's magneticfield Geomagnetic reversal Geomagnetic excursion Magnetometer Orbital
11 KB (1,438 words) - 19:57, 23 August 2016

Geomagnetic excursion (category Geomagnetic reversal)
geomagnetic excursion, like a geomagnetic reversal, is a significant change in theEarth's magnetic field. Unlike reversals however, an excursion does not permanently
7 KB (1,060 words) - 13:31, 17 December 2015

Superswell
extended period in the time frame from 125 Ma to 40 Ma where the earth's magneticfield reversal frequency declines sharply. The last remnants of this superplume
6 KB (737 words) - 17:13, 26 January 2016

Bernard Brunhes
direction almost opposite to that of the present-day magnetic field. From this, he deduced that the magnetic North Pole of the time was close to the current
2 KB (251 words) - 23:53, 25 March 2016

Occitania
interferometer. Bernard Brunhes, geophysicist who discovered the Earth's magneticfield reversals. Giuseppe Peano, Italian mathematician, best known for his
95 KB (11,368 words) - 05:27, 29 August 2016

Earth's magnetic field
Earth's magnetic field, also known as the geomagnetic field, is the magnetic fieldthat extends from the Earth's interior out into space, where it meets
64 KB (7,607 words) - 17:28, 29 August 2016

Geomagnetic reversal
Polarity reversal (seismology). A geomagnetic reversal is a change in a planet'smagnetic field such that the positions of magnetic north and magnetic south
36 KB (4,430 words) - 20:51, 27 July 2016

Magnetic field
see Magnetic field (disambiguation). A magnetic field is the magnetic effect of electric currents and magnetic materials. The magnetic field at any
86 KB (11,211 words) - 16:10, 29 August 2016

Earth (redirect from Earth’s surface)
million years. The most recent reversal occurred approximately 700,000 years ago. The extent of Earth's magnetic field in space defines the magnetosphere
158 KB (15,806 words) - 23:46, 29 August 2016

North Magnetic Pole
The North Magnetic Pole is the point on the surface of Earth's Northern Hemisphere at which the planet's magnetic field points vertically downwards (in
19 KB (2,347 words) - 20:59, 28 August 2016

Brunhes–Matuyama reversal
reversal, named after Bernard Brunhes and Motonori Matuyama, was a geologic event, approximately 781,000 years ago, when the Earth's magnetic field last
5 KB (492 words) - 18:30, 13 July 2016

Compass (redirect from Magnetic compass)
the Earth's magnetic field. The magnetic field exerts a torque on the needle, pulling one end or pole of the needle approximately toward the Earth's North
42 KB (5,769 words) - 13:41, 30 August 2016

Geomagnetic pole (section Geomagnetic reversal)
hypothesis. Main article: Geomagnetic reversal Over the life of the Earth, the orientation of Earth's magnetic field has reversed many times, with geomagnetic
6 KB (775 words) - 20:44, 1 June 2016

Paleomagnetism (section Fields of paleomagnetism)
Palaeomagnetism in the United Kingdom) is the study of the record of the Earth'smagnetic field in rocks, sediment, or archeological materials. Certain minerals
17 KB (1,960 words) - 02:21, 5 July 2016

Magnetic anomaly
details on this topic, see Magnetic striping. In geophysics, a magnetic anomaly is a local variation in the Earth's magnetic field resulting from variations
17 KB (1,810 words) - 16:30, 17 December 2015

Stellar magnetic field
differential motion), the reversal of the magnetic field may not be very periodic. This is the case with the Earth's magnetic field, which is generated by
17 KB (2,210 words) - 20:10, 22 June 2016

Geophysics
sometimes refers only to the geological applications: Earth's shape; its gravitational and magnetic fields; its internal structure and composition; its dynamics
39 KB (4,325 words) - 03:56, 26 July 2016
First page of Google results:

*Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
Geo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*magnetic*_*reversal*
Wikipedia
Jump to Observing past *fields* - Past field reversals can be and have been recorded in the "frozen" ferromagnetic (or more accurately, ferrimagnetic) ...
‎History · ‎Observing past fields · ‎Geomagnetic polarity time scale
*Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time - NASA*
www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-pole*Reversal*.html
NASA
Nov 30, 2011 - The N-S markings of a compass would be 180 degrees wrong if the polarity of today'smagnetic field were reversed. Many doomsday theorists ...
*Earth's magnetic field could flip within our lifetime – but don't worry, we ...*
www.extremetech.com › Computing
ExtremeTech
Oct 21, 2014 - The Earth's magnetic field is generated by the movement of molten iron in ... The fact that there's no evidence that a reversal occurred after the ...
*Earth's Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected ...*
www.scientificamerican.com/.../earth-s-*magnetic*-*field*-flip-could-...
Scientific American
Jul 9, 2014 - Changes measured by the Swarm satellite show that our magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than originally predicted, especially over ...

*Magnetic Field Reversal | Greatest Discoveries | Discovery Science*
www.sciencechannel.com/tv.../100-greatest-discoveries-*magnetic*-*field*-*reversal*/
Bernard Brunhes' study of volvanic eruptions lead to the discovery of the earth's magnetic field reversal.
*Ancient Huts May Reveal Clues to Earth's Magnetic Pole Reversals*
www.space.com › Science & Astronomy
Space.com
Jul 28, 2015 - The remains of burnt out Iron Age huts in Africa hold clues into understanding a bizarre weak spot in the Earth's magnetic field and weird ...
Images for magnetic field reversal




More images for magnetic field reversal
*Magnetic Reversal – Official Data, All in One Place*
*magneticreversal*.org/
MagneticReversal.org gathers data from NASA, NOAA, the ESA, the WDC for ... 5) Earth's magnetic field was weakening 5% per century, but now is weakening ...
*Don't flip out: Earth's magnetic poles aren't about to switch | Science ...*
https://www.sciencenews.org/.../don’t-flip-out-earth’s-*magnetic*-poles-ar...
Science News
by C Crockett - ‎Related articles
Nov 23, 2015 - Earth's waning magnetic field is returning to its long-term average, not heading toward a catastrophic magnetic reversal, new lava analysis ...
*Magnetic Reversals*
www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/*reversals*.html
British Geological Survey
Jump to Is the Earth's *magnetic field reversing* now? How do we know? - Measurements have been made of the Earth's magnetic field more or less ...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So, the options appear to be, the pole flips every 100k to 1 million years, which explains the magnetic stripes, versus your explanation that the stripes were caused by...........?




I never tried to explain the stripes.  I explained how land based magnetic direction can be altered when the plate rotates like SA has.

The stripes are good evidence.  I cannot refute them at this time, but I will continue to try....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 31, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So, the options appear to be, the pole flips every 100k to 1 million years, which explains the magnetic stripes, versus your explanation that the stripes were caused by...........?
> ...



Backing off your claim that the magnetic field does not alternate?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 31, 2016)

Possibly, but it is also my duty to be diligent before I do.  There are land based claims.  Those claims are far less convincing than the sea floor stripes.


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The stripes are good evidence.  I cannot refute them at this time, but I will continue to try....



Why?

Why not just follow the evidence?


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 1, 2016)

I do.  I just do not parrot and jump to conclusions.

You do not.


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2016)

You most obviously do NOT follow evidence.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 2, 2016)

Parroting fraud, fudge, and cherry picking is only evidence that the parrot has a birdbrain.


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

Making accusations without having ever produced a piece of evidence to support your charges is not an admirable practice.  Didn't your mother ever tell you that?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2016)

*Evidence from lava flows for complex polarity transitions: the new composite Steens Mountain reversal record

Nicholas A. Jarboe1, 
Robert S. Coe1 and 
Jonathan M.G. Glen2
*

*Summary*
Geomagnetic polarity transitions may be significantly more complex than are currently depicted in many sedimentary and lava-flow records. By splicing together paleomagnetic results from earlier studies at Steens Mountain with those from three newly studied sections of Oregon Plateau flood basalts at Catlow Peak and Poker Jim Ridge 70–90 km to the southeast and west, respectively, we provide support for this interpretation with the most detailed account of a magnetic field reversal yet observed in volcanic rocks. Forty-five new distinguishable transitional (T) directions together with 30 earlier ones reveal a much more complex and detailed record of the 16.7 Ma reversed (R)-to-normal (N) polarity transition that marks the end of Chron C5Cr. Compared to the earlier R-T-N-T-N reversal record, the new record can be described as R-T-N-T-N-T-R-T-N. The composite record confirms earlier features, adds new west and up directions and an entire large N-T-R-T segment to the path, and fills in directions on the path between earlier directional jumps. Persistent virtual geomagnetic pole (VGP) clusters and separate VGPs have a preference for previously described longitudinal bands from transition study compilations, which suggests the presence of features at the core–mantle boundary that influence the flow of core fluid and distribution of magnetic flux. Overall the record is consistent with the generalization that VGP paths vary greatly from reversal to reversal and depend on the location of the observer. Rates of secular variation confirm that the flows comprising these sections were erupted rapidly, with maximum rates estimated to be 85–120 m ka−1 at Catlow and 130–195 m ka−1 at Poker Jim South. Paleomagnetic poles from other studies are combined with 32 non-transitional poles found here to give a clockwise rotation of the Oregon Plateau of 11.4°± 5.6° with respect to the younger Columbia River Basalt Group flows to the north and 14.5°± 4.6° with respect to cratonic North America (95 per cent confidence interval).

http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/186/2/580.full

*The full text of the article is available at the link. There is absolutely no way that the land could 'rotate' fast enough, or in enough directions to leave a record like that in the basalts of the Steens Mountain.*


----------



## Yarddog (Sep 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The "warmers" have been busy revising history to fit their pathetic excuse of a theory into history.  It ain't workin'...
> 
> We have all the data today right in front of us to understand "ice ages" and their parameters on Earth.
> 
> ...




Well in the winter Bears store up fat and move into sleepy hollows until the spring thaw.  In an ICE AGE, its when white people move back to the caves of Europe, let their hair grow long , experiment with mushrooms and plant dyes.    Meanwhile all along the equator Science and Art flourishes once again..........

well at least thats the way Ive heard it said around these parts


----------



## jc456 (Sep 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> Making accusations without having ever produced a piece of evidence to support your charges is not an admirable practice.  Didn't your mother ever tell you that?


didn't yours tell you that same thing?  I mean when is it you're going to fulfill that in here?


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2016)

I have fullfilled it repeatedly and for some time now but you choose to continue to lie about it.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Making accusations without having ever produced a piece of evidence to support your charges is not an admirable practice.  Didn't your mother ever tell you that?



Just like what you do when you claim that man made climate change is real...since there isn't the first piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have fullfilled it repeatedly and for some time now but you choose to continue to lie about it.


IPCC link, no excerpt from it with what you feel satisfies your claim.  Yeah, alright.  stick with that.  It isn't just me telling you that a link doesn't make an argument.  you need to fill in the blank on what you feel in the link satisfies the claim as I stated.  you, nope.  I know I can search for you and tell you how many times you did it.  Curious at all?


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 8, 2016)

Meanwhile, 90% of Earth ice on "ice age" Antarctica continues to add at least 80 billion tons of ice every year.,..


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2016)

The link directly below leads to Zwally's paper that contends the ice mass balance of Antarctica is positive, ie, that it is gaining ice mass

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

I know of (and could find) no other papers that believe Antarctica has a positive mass balance.  If you know of any, you might bring them forward.  The remaining links below all lead to articles or studies who conclude that Antarctica's ice mass balance is negative: that is, that it is losing ice mass.

Changes in ice dynamics and mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Antarctic Ice Sheet surface mass balance

Observed Mass Balance of Mountain Glaciers and Greenland Ice Sheet in the 20th Century and the Present Trends

An introduction to Glacier Mass Balance

Important role for ocean warming and increased ice-shelf melt in Antarctic sea-ice expansion :  Nature Geoscience :  Nature Research

Is it possible that glaciers are showing a decrease in mass balance (not negative), yet they are showing recession - AntarcticGlaciers.org

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Mass balance of polar ice sheets.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6683/full/393325a0.html

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9798

Antarctic ice shelves rapidly melting

Ocean-driven thinning enhances iceberg calving and retreat of Antarctic ice shelves

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-scientist-devoted-earth-ice-sheets.html

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/6/e1500093.full

http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/176/1/95.full

I stopped copying links long before I ran out of them.

So what was it you said sometime earlier about following the evidence?


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> I know of (and could find) no other papers that believe Antarctica has a positive mass balance




... despite the FACT that the DATA says it IS GROWING ICE.

WHY do the "authors" of these taxpayer funded studies LIE??

We had to go to COURT in 2007, remember..????

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’


"
How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?


The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the *rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.*
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
*The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.*
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2016)

Are you kidding me?

1) The English court case against "An Inconvenient Truth" meant absolutely nothing to anyone beyond English public school teachers of 2007.
2) Your highlighted point concerning Antarctic ice WAS NOT AMONG THE COURT'S FINDING. That piece of text, that you've put up here repeatedly is a denier-fabricated LIE.  Go look up the court's actual findings.  I've posted them for you once.  You should have KNOWN this piece of shit was a LIE.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> The English court case against "An Inconvenient Truth" meant absolutely nothing




This is just pathetic, and par for the course of the FRAUD.

Two sides disagree
Two sides go to court
One side wins
The other side chickens out from appealing


End of story, right?

Wrong - this is the "mother of all left wing taxpayer funded frauds," and it keeps going no matter how many times it gets BUSTED LYING.


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2016)

You have got to be the stupidest fuckwad ever put on this Earth.  The ONLY thing accomplished by that court dispute was forcing English public schools to provide a disclaimer before showing them "An Inconvenient Truth".  That - is - *FUCKING -* *IT*.

Now why don't we return to the post above, where I provided links to 15 different studies that come to the conclusion that Antarctica is LOSING ICE MASS while you have precisely ONE which says otherwise.



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> The link directly below leads to Zwally's paper that contends the ice mass balance of Antarctica is positive, ie, that it is gaining ice mass
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
> 
> ...



And your defense is to say that my scientists are all lyng ? ? ?

My fucking god you set new paragons of stupid.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> forcing English public schools to provide a disclaimer before showing them "An Inconvenient Truth".




The DISCLAIMER states that the movie about "Truth" isn't...

It is about CHERRY PICKING, FUDGE, and FRAUD.


Warning - this movie lies, it cherry picks, what it says is not true, and there is no evidence at all that CO2 affects Earth temperature


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> The link directly below leads to Zwally's paper that contends the ice mass balance of Antarctica is positive, ie, that it is gaining ice mass
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
> 
> ...


took me all of two minutes to pull up one:

Antarctica is gaining ice, NASA study says - CNN.com

"Antarctica is gaining more ice than it has lost, according to a new study by NASA.
A NASA team came to this conclusion after scientists examined the heights of the region's ice sheet measured from satellites."

Can you say D'OH?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> The link directly below leads to Zwally's paper that contends the ice mass balance of Antarctica is positive, ie, that it is gaining ice mass
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
> 
> ...


another two minutes and:
Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING: Big freeze breaks records

*"Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING: Big freeze breaks records - but scientists claim the rise is caused by global warming*

*Images suggest there is 7.7 million square miles of sea around continent*
*This is double size of the Antarctic and three times the size of Australia*
*Fast westerly winds, which go around Antarctica, are now moving south*
*This is linked to an increase in greenhouse gases and increase in sea ice*
*Separate study found region's glaciers are melting faster than ever before"*
*Well?*


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 9, 2016)

And there you have it.

Warming - caused by global warming
Cooling - caused by global warming
droughts - caused by global warming
floods - caused by global warming
sea ice melting - caused by global warming
sea ice increasing - caused by global warming


What could possibly happen that would disprove global warming?  Nothing.  Global Warming causes every single variation of weather.

So sayeth THE FRAUD.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2016)

Yo Crick, how about all of these:


*Experts Dispute NASA Antarctic Ice Gain Study | Al …*
*america.aljazeera.com*/.../2/*experts-dispute-nasa*...*ice*-*gain*-study.html
*Experts dispute NASA* study showing Antarctic *ice gain*. ... especially those in West *Antarctica*. These *ice gains*, ... your *comment* was not saved due to a technical ...


*Study Reveals Net Ice Gain in Antarctica - voanews.com*
*www.voanews.com*/a/mht-study-reveals-net-*ice*-*gain*-in-*antarctica*/...
A NASA study says *ice* in *Antarctica* grew by 82 billion tons annually between 2003 and 2008. Accessibility links. ... But the *gains* were not uniform around the continent.


*NASA reveals that Antarctica is actually gaining more ice ...*
*www.telegraph.co.uk*/.../NASA...*Antarctica*-is-actually-*gain*ing-*ice*.html
Nov 02, 2015 · Video embedded · *Antarctica*'s *ice* floes have been found to be growing faster than they ... we see an *ice gain* that exceeds the losses in the ... The best *British* …


*Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses : Nature News ...*
www.nature.com › News & *Comment* › News › 2015 › December
So much *ice* is piling up in the vast expanses of East *Antarctica* that, overall, it counterbalances the losses seen at glaciers thinning elsewhere on the frozen ...


*NASA says Antarctica is actually gaining ice. Does this ...*
*www.msn.com*/en-us/weather/topstories/nasa-says-*antarctica*-is...
NASA *says Antarctica is actually gaining ice*. ... the *ice* melt in *Antarctica* to outweigh the *ice gains*, ... Who posted the inappropriate *comment* ...


*Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses ...*
*phys.org* › Earth › Earth Sciences
Mass *gains* of Antarctic *Ice* Sheet greater than losses, ... their lackey *court* mages ... concerning *Antarctica*'s *ice gain*?


*Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice? - skepticalscience.com*
www.skepticalscience.com/*antarctica*-*gain*ing-*ice*.htm
While the interior of East *Antarctica* is gaining land *ice*, overall *Antarctica* is losing land ... since this *comment* was ... should maybe showing a *gain* ...


*Two New Studies Say Antarctica Gaining Ice And Snow …*
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/11/09/two-news-studies...
Two *New Studies Say Antarctica Gaining Ice* ... Survey show that *gains* in snow and *ice* are ... these sectors of *Antarctica*, corresponds to a very large *gain* ...


*NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His …*
*mediamatters.org*/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers...
It could take only a few decades for the *ice* melt in *Antarctica* to outweigh the *ice gains*, ... to create a "climate justice" *court*): ... your *comment* history ...


*If Antarctica is gaining ice, why is the Earth still ...*
*www.cbsnews.com*/news/if-*antarctica-is-gaining-ice*-why-is-the-earth...
Video embedded · If *Antarctica is gaining ice*, ... *Comment*; Share; Tweet ... [in West *Antarctica*]," said Thomas, of the *British* Antarctic Survey.
Need me to find some more for you, since it was soooooo hard to find any right?


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > forcing English public schools to provide a disclaimer before showing them "An Inconvenient Truth".
> ...



The only lies we have here are coming from YOU.

Here, dipshit, is the actual, Oh-fucking-ficial text of Justice Burton's decision in Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills.  By the way, Dimmock LOST this case.

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The link directly below leads to Zwally's paper that contends the ice mass balance of Antarctica is positive, ie, that it is gaining ice mass
> ...



Once again jc, Zwally's study concerned the ice mass of the Antarctic *CONTINENT*.  Your article concerns the sea ice surrounding the continent.  And you might try going somewhere besides the Daily Mail (UK version of the National Enquirer) to get the opinions of scientists.


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Yo Crick, how about all of these:
> 
> 
> *Experts Dispute NASA Antarctic Ice Gain Study | Al …*
> ...



*Every* single one of your links refers to Zwally's paper.  The only one that even mentions an additional paper (#8) adds one that studies ONLY the coastal regions of the West Antarctic Peninsula, NOT the continent as a whole.

Are you really that stupid?


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 9, 2016)

The DATA never showed anything but Antarctic ice growth, both on the continent and the sea ice.

Your side LIES, and the British Court BUSTED those lies, and I do not care what kind of BS spin comes out of the mouth of the left wing judge after the ruling.

Antarctic ice GROWING
NO CORRELATION between CO2 and temps in the ice cores.


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

I posted links to fifteen, different, peer reviewed studies whose data show that the Antarctic ice mass balance is negative.  Thus, your first statement is a lie.

The link I provided you IS THE DECISION OF THE JUDGE YOU CLAIM "BUSTED"... someone.  Your statement is utter nonsense.

Zwally believes Antarctic ice is growing.  Everyone else in his field seems to disagree.

Correlation between CO2 and temperatures in Antarctic ice cores:


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Yo Crick, how about all of these:
> ...


so you ignored the NASA one.  Why?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> I posted links to fifteen, different, peer reviewed studies whose data show that the Antarctic ice mass balance is negative.  Thus, your first statement is a lie.
> 
> The link I provided you IS THE DECISION OF THE JUDGE YOU CLAIM "BUSTED"... someone.  Your statement is utter nonsense.
> 
> ...


NASA?


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

NASA... what?


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Have you got some sort of brain malfunction?  In EVERY single one of these links, the "NASA" paper is Zwally's.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> I posted links to fifteen, different, peer reviewed studies




We have been all too aware for very long that these "studies" are fudge.

The DATA was what the COURT looked at, and told the FUDGE to WALK, which is why your side CHICKENED OUT from appealing.  The DATA never showed anything but growth.  "Studies" are not DATA, they are FUDGE, and those who did those studies showing Antarctic ice loss should be prosecuted for fraud.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 9, 2016)

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses


"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."


Antarctic ice added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year the satellites have measured it.


----------



## Gracie (Sep 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> What is an "ice age?"


It's what happens after global warming.


----------



## Crick (Sep 10, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I posted links to fifteen, different, peer reviewed studies
> ...



Are you insane?  I have three times now shown you the actual results of the court case to which you've pinned your hopes and your comments here are absolute bullshit.  They are false.  They are lies.  You are simply making shit up or PARROTING SHIT you read from some denier whack job like yourself.

Show us from the court's ACTUAL OPINION where it says ANYTHING you've claimed it said. ANYTHING ! ! !


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have three times now shown you the actual results of the court case to which you've pinned your hopes and your comments here are absolute bullshit




Only in your warped and biased mind.  When a court rules that 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica is GROWING, that blows away all the fudge you've parroted here regarding...

1. whether or not there is a net ice melt ongoing on the planet 
2. hence whether or not the oceans are rising

Sorry.  One of the reasons your side has lied for 30 years about Antarctic ice is because your fraud doesn't "work" with the truth of Antarctic ice GROWTH out there.  That is why your side HATES that court ruling.  That is why your side bills the taxpayer for fudge study after study claiming "melt" when there NEVER was ANY DATA to suggest Antarctica was doing anything but growing.

Your FRAUD is COURT CERTIFIED as FRAUD, and your FRAUD side was TOO CHICKEN to APPEAL.


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2016)

Give us a link to the official results of your court case.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 17, 2016)

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’



The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 year
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.


There it is.  No CO2 correlation with temps, and 90% of Earth ice INCREASING, and your FRAUD side was TOO CHICKEN to appeal.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2016)

LaDumbkopf, you are simply one of the world's most foolish liars. Your insane blatherskite theories against the whole of the scientific world.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LaDumbkopf, you are simply one of the world's most foolish liars. Your insane blatherskite theories against the whole of the scientific world.


What's your point in the video?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2016)

Nothing at all that you are capable of understanding, jc, nothing at all.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 19, 2016)

Old Rocks doesn't like people who question his birdbrained left wing factless parroting.  OR wants everyone to parrot with him - no thinking allowed.  Try again, parrot.  Your side went to court and LOST on 

1. 90% of Earth ice INCREASING
2. no correlation between CO2 and temps in ice cores


Indeed, the level of idiocy required to believe Algore's FRAUD isn't human, it is this species...


----------



## Crick (Sep 19, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Old Rocks doesn't like people who question his birdbrained left wing factless parroting.  OR wants everyone to parrot with him - no thinking allowed.  Try again, parrot.  *Your side went to court and LOST on
> 
> 1. 90% of Earth ice INCREASING
> 2. no correlation between CO2 and temps in ice cores*
> ...



I've been away for a bit.  Did I miss you providing a link to some court case that actually came to the conclusions you claim?


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 20, 2016)

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’


And what are those inaccuracies?


The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
*The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.*
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
*The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.*
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2016)

So, you ARE talking about Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills.  As I have posted before now, the ACTUAL court opinion [Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)] lists NINE items and the mapping between them and your list is poor. Additionally, the only actual result of this court case is that UK public school teachers are required to present a disclaimer based on the court's findings before showing the film.  Dimmock's suit had sought to to have the school system stop showing the film and on that point he lost.  The court's decision found the film's premise and presentation "broadly accurate".  The court did NOT say that sea level was not rising nor that the evidence indicated it was not rising.  The court did NOT say that the Antarctic ice mass balance was positive.  In short, the court did not find what you have repeatedly said it found and lacks ANY of the significance you have repeatedly claimed it holds.

You have repeatedly been informed of the facts in this matter and are therefore CHOOSING to lie.


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> lists NINE items



The media really hates to admit Antarctic ice is growing...




Crick said:


> the only actual result of this court case is that UK public school teachers are required to present a disclaimer based on the court's findings before showing the film.



LMFAO!!!

Two sides went to court, one side one, the other side didn't appeal, and now insists it really didn't lose....

LOL!!!


The greed of those behind the FRAUD is as limitless as Hillary's corruption.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2016)

I invite anyone who wonders which of us is accurately describing the results of this case to go to the COURT'S ACTUAL FINDING in this case at Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)


----------



## jc456 (Sep 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> I invite anyone who wonders which of us is accurately describing the results of this case to go to the COURT'S ACTUAL FINDING in this case at Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)


what exactly are you arguing?


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 22, 2016)

The Court's actual findings....


1. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica INCREASING
2. NO CORRELATION between CO2 and temps in the ice cores


Warmers really really HATE that TRUTH.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2016)

"One side one"? !?!?

Holy fuck are you stupid.

SHOW US A STATEMENT FROM THE COURT MAKING THESE CLAIMS YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT



LaDexter said:


> The Court's actual findings....
> 
> 1. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica INCREASING
> 2. NO CORRELATION between CO2 and temps in the ice cores
> /QUOTE]


----------



## LaDexter (Sep 22, 2016)

Over and over I post it, and over and over our resident taxpayer funded fudge lover denies it...


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2016)

I have never seen such a liar.  

Again, the ACTUAL, OFFICIAL COURT'S CONCLUSION in this case may be read at 
Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

and will clearly show that poster LaDexter has chosen to blatantly LIE through his teeth to us.


----------

