# Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 28, 2016)

Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…


----------



## oldsoul (Jun 28, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> 
> Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.
> 
> ...


And the truth shall set you free.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jun 28, 2016)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 28, 2016)

WTF? The sciencist have all the data and you loserterian freaks have none. You're the one that looks out your fucking windows and says it is snowing. Dumb bastards.


----------



## Crick (Jun 28, 2016)

God are you people stupid.  You always seem to see or hear or read what you want to see or hear or read.  And then there's the point that you can't tell when you're licked. And god almighty are you fools licked.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> God are you people stupid.  You always seem to see or hear or read what you want to see or hear or read.  And then there's the point that you can't tell when you're licked. And god almighty are you fools licked.




None of us compare to the just mockery of a Climate Change guru who says " just look out your window".. You need to read more REAL science and stop relying on Mann, Hansen, Jones, Trenberth and the other loudmouths that give science a bad name. And are increasingly frazzled and unprofessional.. 

Speaking of "licked"..  Where have all the PREDICTIONS gone ????????  You seen any recently?????? 
What's the latest bookie bet on the GMAST in 2050?  You're jig is about up BullWinkle. Might not even be anymore IPCC mega-masturbation fests.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2016)

Fudged data and pointing at the top weather story is not science


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 28, 2016)

"Man-made climate change is “not a matter of opinion, but of careful evaluation of data from a vast spectrum of scientific disciplines.”
Anne Yoder, Society of Systematic Biologists


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> "Man-made climate change is “not a matter of opinion, but of careful evaluation of data from a vast spectrum of scientific disciplines.”
> Anne Yoder, Society of Systematic Biologists



And if anyone in science is qualified to define climate science -- it would be a "Systematic Biologist".. 

        Hell --- he's RIGHT --- but if I tried that trick as a scientist -- you'd be all over my case.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2016)

Mann and friends need to be thrown in the garbage bin with Nye the anti science guy.  We don't need no stinking evidence... just look outside and ignore the facts/evidence...  Its warm today so it must be man caused...

The shear ignorance of democrats and their religious cult leaders..


----------



## Crick (Jun 28, 2016)

The sheer ignorance of all the folks who seem incapable of  understanding plain English...

Pray tell, where did Mann say that the evidence already collected - the work he has spent his life doing - was unneeded or irrelevant? His comment refers to FURTHER work.  This is simply another version of 'the science is settled'.  And it is.  Whine and squeal all you want, you lost this one a good while back and you're chances of recovering it range from nada to zip.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2016)

Two threads in one day from the Warmers --- BOTH about "throwing away the tools of science and looking out your window or the 24 hour news cycle"..

Damn suspicious.. I believe the DNC GW platform that Mann was helping to write became a talking point at Dem UnderGround yesterday..    

My calculations say it was NOT a coincidence..

Maybe Mann is trading his "tools" in for a sharper set..


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 28, 2016)

Matthew said:


> WTF? The sciencist have all the data and you loserterian freaks have none. You're the one that looks out your fucking windows and says it is snowing. Dumb bastards.


I'm sorry, I was fleeing the rising ocean.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 28, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> None of us compare to the just mockery of a Climate Change guru who says " just look out your window"..



Since he didn't say "We don't need data", what explains your colossal screw up there in reading comprehension and logic?



> You need to read more REAL science and stop relying on Mann, Hansen, Jones, Trenberth and the other loudmouths that give science a bad name. And are increasingly frazzled and unprofessional..



You're certainly good at reciting your enemies list, and projecting your own hysterical nature upon on the rational people. Have you looked at your own postings lately? You're getting increasingly incoherent.



> Speaking of "licked"..  Where have all the PREDICTIONS gone ????????  You seen any recently??????
> What's the latest bookie bet on the GMAST in 2050?  You're jig is about up BullWinkle. Might not even be anymore IPCC mega-masturbation fests.



Do let us know when your "science" graduates to anything beyond wild hand waving, invoking magic, and cursing at people.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jun 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > None of us compare to the just mockery of a Climate Change guru who says " just look out your window"..
> ...





Weatherman2020 said:


> What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,”


----------



## mamooth (Jun 28, 2016)

And?

Your thread is a lie. Nobody said not to collect data. The statement was that the raw data was not necessary to see the effects of warming.

If you're claiming otherwise, you're either stupid or dishonest. Let us know which is the case.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > None of us compare to the just mockery of a Climate Change guru who says " just look out your window"..
> ...




Wow .. Both You and Crickham can't read. What a coincidence.. 



> “What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.



Explain to me how "tools ..... are increasingly unnecessary because we can see..... "  is NOT the saying that intuition and observation are becoming all that is required to see the coming super apocalypse.. 

HE SAID -- no tools required.. Just turn on the news or look out your window..    If his tools were my tools, I'd toss them out the winder and watch the Weather Channel also...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2016)

Who needs science when Mann has his one tree ring?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 29, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Mann and friends need to be thrown in the garbage bin with Nye the anti science guy.  We don't need no stinking evidence... just look outside and ignore the facts/evidence...  Its warm today so it must be man caused...
> 
> The shear ignorance of democrats and their religious cult leaders..


Throw out NOAA and their fake hurricane maps and their crazy cone of probability...these are fakers ...probably allies with the "Chi Com AGW scam" forget NOAA ...let the USMB Climate genius give those Hurricane  forecasts instead of the scientific fakers at NOAA and NASA


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 29, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Two threads in one day from the Warmers --- BOTH about "throwing away the tools of science and looking out your window or the 24 hour news cycle"..
> 
> Damn suspicious.. I believe the DNC GW platform that Mann was helping to write became a talking point at Dem UnderGround yesterday..
> 
> ...


Mann and sharp objects.... I can see this ending badly...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 29, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Mann and friends need to be thrown in the garbage bin with Nye the anti science guy.  We don't need no stinking evidence... just look outside and ignore the facts/evidence...  Its warm today so it must be man caused...
> ...


I see your totally invested in altered and highly adjusted data... in other-words FANTASY!


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 29, 2016)

Matthew said:


> WTF? The sciencist have all the data and you loserterian freaks have none. You're the one that looks out your fucking windows and says it is snowing. Dumb bastards.




they do 

do they 

--LOL

"all the data" --LOL


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 29, 2016)

Part of the reason we went to Court in Britain in 2007 was the fact that, after fudging data, the Tippy Toppiest "top climate scientists" are very very reluctant to share the data they fudged.  They usually have to be sued to do so.

"This isn't about truth, it is about plausible deniability" Tippy Dr. Michael Mann


----------



## jc456 (Jun 29, 2016)

Matthew said:


> WTF? The sciencist have all the data and you loserterian freaks have none. You're the one that looks out your fucking windows and says it is snowing. Dumb bastards.


I watch TV and I see no sea level rise, a fundamental piece of agw. Now that's funny.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 29, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Explain to me how "tools ..... are increasingly unnecessary because we can see..... "  is NOT the saying that intuition and observation are becoming all that is required to see the coming super apocalypse.



No problem.

Mann said something.

You declared Mann really meant something completely different.

That means you're just making up weird stories. Your use of cult terms like "super apocalypse" give us a clue about your motivation.



> HE SAID -- no tools required.. Just turn on the news or look out your window..    If his tools were my tools, I'd toss them out the winder and watch the Weather Channel also...



He said no tools are required for the average person to see global warming.

Inexplicably, you've declared that means something to the effect of "Mann said scientists should stop collecting data".

If torturing statements to that extent is the best you can do now, you're more desperate than we thought.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 29, 2016)

"all the evidence for global climate warming change is right there under my pinkie"


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Mann and friends need to be thrown in the garbage bin with Nye the anti science guy.  We don't need no stinking evidence... just look outside and ignore the facts/evidence...  Its warm today so it must be man caused...
> ...



So how HAS the past 15 or so Atlantic hurricane seasons gone for you alarmists? Huh?  Betcha still dancing for the big one...


----------



## oldsoul (Jun 29, 2016)

An observation:
Most meteorologists have a hard time being accurate beyond about 72 hours.
Weather is cyclic (day is warmer than night, summer is warmer than winter).
Climate is cyclic ( several ice ages have occurred, followed by warming).
The earth has been around, in it's current state, for millennia.
Industrialized man has been around for ~150-200 years (depending on your definition).

How arrogant of someone to state that mankind can have a significant long term effect on global climate. Are they really saying that we are more powerful than "Mother Earth"?

Just some food for thought, if you are still willing to THINK CRITICALLY, and have the ability.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 29, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> So how HAS the past 15 or so Atlantic hurricane seasons gone for you alarmists? Huh?  Betcha still dancing for the big one...



Back to the "The Atlantic is the whole world!" strawman.

You're down to recycling really stupid strawmen. You reek of desperation. But then, you have to deflect from the data somehow, eh?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 29, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> How arrogant of someone to state that mankind can have a significant long term effect on global climate. Are they really saying that we are more powerful than "Mother Earth"?



No. That's your loopy strawman. It's also a dumb statement because it's meaningless, unless you define "more powerful" and "Mother Earth" precisely. That is, it's fuzzy feelgood nonsense.



> Just some food for thought, if you are still willing to THINK CRITICALLY, and have the ability.



You failed at thinking critically. You're relying on the logical fallacy "climate has changed naturally, therefore humans can't change climate". By that same bad logic, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires, since forest fires used to always be natural.

Rest assured that all the scientists and rational people recognize how bad your logic is.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So how HAS the past 15 or so Atlantic hurricane seasons gone for you alarmists? Huh?  Betcha still dancing for the big one...
> ...



Either GLOBAL theories apply globally or they do not..  Either ALL seas are warming or they are not. Either WEATHER responds to uniform heating of the troposphere the same around the globe -- or not.

Or maybe you should dial up your clergy and ask them to consider a new logo. Maybe Semi-Global Climate Change or Pockets of Extreme Weather (PEW -- ) or Vicious Isolated Man Aggravated Weather (VIMAW --- I like that one.).
.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 29, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


So how has the hurricane season in the Pacific gone for you denialists?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



Last year was a rough year with the strongest El Nino in awhile affected the East Pac. I didn't see evidence of 0.5deg changing the historical norms tho.. What I DID SEE, was more complete instrumentation and coverage of storms on an hourly basis than we had even 20 years ago in the Pacific.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 29, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Now that is about the most dumbfuck thing that you have said yet, Mr. Flacaltenn. Mountains, distance to oceans, latitude, and vast prairies are not going to have any affect on distribution of of the warming? And you claim to be an engineer? Man, o', man.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Really?  On what do you base this belief that conditions must be uniform across the planet?  Word of god?  Billy Bob the Atmospheric Physicist?  Muhammed the Supremely Intelligent? LaDexter the I've-no-fooking-idea?

Warming is NOT uniform across the planet.  Ever see one of these?






That's 1950-2015.  The globe isn't even uniform over 65 years.  And you think the hurricane seasons have to be symmetric.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I am a scientist that got tired of academic primadonnas and decided to be an engineer. If that matters. I also get more personal satisfaction out of making things based on science that other people seem to have trouble with. 

Anyways -- A uniform heating of the troposphere affected by "distance to oceans"? or prairies? What does that even mean? Either the back rad from CO2/Methane is Global or it is not.. How does one IGNORE the Global statistics when it's convenient?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



You see an explanation for ATLANTIC/PACIFIC disparities in that graphic? I don't... In fact -- the Atlantic might have become a tad warmer overall..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 29, 2016)

A uniform heating of the troposphere? On a planet with a very active atmosphere that has clouds, jet streams, and hadley cells, just to name a few things going on. Whose leg are you trying to pull?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> A uniform heating of the troposphere? On a planet with a very active atmosphere that has clouds, jet streams, and hadley cells, just to name a few things going on. Whose leg are you trying to pull?



Those things are weather makers. A "storm" requires both access to moisture, and a dry line feeder. Like ALL weather events -- they work off of DIFFERENTIALS in the variables -- not off of ABSOLUTES. .

Crick's graph is not because the FORCING is not uniform -- It is uniform. It's the fact that the Earth is not one simple Climate Zone. And different Zones have different "climate sensitivities" that have NOTHING TO DO with "weather" but are simply the temperature response to the back rad forcing.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2016)

duh 


"_We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest._"

- *Prof. Stephen Schneider*, 
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2016)

duh 


"_We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of 
economic and environmental policy._"

- *Timothy Wirth*, 
President of the UN Foundation


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2016)

duh 


"_No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world_."

- *Christine Stewart*,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2016)

Lets face it........these people who have become global warming alarmists are exceedingly impressionable folks. The word "naïve" comes to mind, does it not?

And really......who can be that stoopid to think there are no special interests tied to AGW, but that's what these knotheads think!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2016)

“_The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations 
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models_.”

- *Prof. Chris Folland*,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research



*HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2016)

Hey Flacaltenn............when you are being called a "dumb fuck" = you just poked an AGW religious guy smack dab in the eye with a red hot poker of pwn.Its flashback time for these poor souls who were social invalids in the formative years and got their lunchpails kicked around the schoolyard on many occasions, thus the blip of rage!! munch munch........


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2016)

“_The_ _models are convenient fictions 
that provide something very useful_.”

- *Dr David Frame*, 
climate modeler, Oxford University



munch munch............


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 29, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> 
> Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.
> 
> ...



*downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary”*

That's good news Mr. Mann, that means you don't need to fake your data anymore.

*I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output*

Climate-model output.....is that what you call your own ass?


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2016)

How much research is still required to veryify the theory that bacteria cause disease?

How much research is still required to verify that the Earth orbits the sun?

How much research is still required to verify that the Earth's seasons are caused by its axial tilt?

How much research is still required to verify that CO2 absorbs and emits IR?

How much research is still required to verify that the Earth is warmer than its black body radiation and albedo should create?

None, none, none, none and none.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 30, 2016)

Todd, baby, I don't need a model to tell me a glacier that I hiked up to a decade ago in the Cascades is now terminating a 1000 ft further up the mountain, and what is left is much thinner. I don't need a model to tell me that the tree line has moved up over 500 ft in an area in the North Cascades where I hunt mineral. I don't need a model to tell me the snow is going off earlier, and coming later in the area in Eastern Oregon where I was mostly raised. All these things I have seen with my own eyes. 

And then there is the photos of the mountains and glaciers in the west, taken since the late 19th century. When comparing them to present day photos of the glaciers, the difference is dramatic. This is in your eye evidence. The only way any of this makes sense is if there has been a significant warming. Up to the scientists to measure that warming. But anyone can see that it has happened.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Todd, baby, I don't need a model to tell me a glacier that I hiked up to a decade ago in the Cascades is now terminating a 1000 ft further up the mountain, and what is left is much thinner. I don't need a model to tell me that the tree line has moved up over 500 ft in an area in the North Cascades where I hunt mineral. I don't need a model to tell me the snow is going off earlier, and coming later in the area in Eastern Oregon where I was mostly raised. All these things I have seen with my own eyes.
> 
> And then there is the photos of the mountains and glaciers in the west, taken since the late 19th century. When comparing them to present day photos of the glaciers, the difference is dramatic. This is in your eye evidence. The only way any of this makes sense is if there has been a significant warming. Up to the scientists to measure that warming. But anyone can see that it has happened.



*I don't need a model to tell me a glacier that I hiked up to a decade ago in the Cascades is now terminating a 1000 ft further up the mountain,
*
Do you need a model to tell you how much longer the glacier would be if CO2 was 350 ppm, instead of 400 ppm?
Or how many trillions it would cost to reduce CO2 10 ppm in 2080?

*And then there is the photos of the mountains and glaciers in the west, taken since the late 19th century.*

Imagine if you could see what they looked like in 1750.

*The only way any of this makes sense is if there has been a significant warming.*

What would significant cooling, shorter growing seasons and mass famine look like?
At least we'd have cool, advancing glaciers.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


What hurricane season?

ACE - accumulated storm energy is at a 150 year low...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> How much research is still required to veryify the theory that bacteria cause disease?
> 
> How much research is still required to verify that the Earth orbits the sun?
> 
> ...



If warmers weren't pushing ever higher taxes and bigger government, I'd have less of an issue with their science.
And if they wanted to increase nuclear power, instead of windmills, because cheap, reliable power is better than expensive, unreliable power, I'd have less of an issue with their economics.

And if they wanted to build solar power satellites, instead of forcing utilities to buy electricity from every taxpayer subsidized rooftop installation, I'd have less of an issue with solar power.


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2016)

What do higher taxes and big government have to do with the validity of the science?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> What do higher taxes and big government have to do with the validity of the science?



Exactly.


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2016)

So you have no issue with the science of man made global warming?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> So you have no issue with the science of man made global warming?



If warmers weren't pushing ever higher taxes and bigger government, I'd have less of an issue with their science.


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2016)

Again, what does one have to do with the other?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> Again, what does one have to do with the other?



If you want to argue the science, argue the science.

If you want to distort the data to push trillions of dollars in spending, you'll get resistance.


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2016)

What climate scientists can you name, pushing to spend trillions of dollars of tax money?

You seem to be arguing the grand conspiracy: they are lying because they will get rich.  Number one: that is the hypothesis of paranoid fools.  You're not a paranoid fool Todd.  Two, taxes to pay for massive amelioration measures will not make climate scientists rich. 

This comment from Mann can be taken another way: without further research, the claim that climate scientists are doing it to get rich off research grants goes poof, doesn't it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 1, 2016)

You are already paying for global warming in your taxes. You think that the money for fighting the forest fires comes from some other source? County, city, state, and federal firefighters are paid out of our taxes. The rebuilding of destroyed infrastructure comes out of our taxes. What about the floods on the East side of the nation this year? How much private money goes into rebuilding the roads that were destroyed? How much federal and state money went into emergency shelters for those displaced.

Yes, Todd, you are going to pay significant tax money for global warming. But the scientists are not getting that money, your neighbors and fellow citizens that have suffered from the increases in fires and floods are the ones getting that money.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> What do higher taxes and big government have to do with the validity of the science?




Precisely, since "global warming" aka CO2 based climate change has precisely no scientific validity at all...  which is why those who support big government and higher taxes are so very in love with such an obvious FRAUD...


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2016)

Todd, please tell us why you think the science is compromised by the cost of fighting off global warming?


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 1, 2016)

mamooth said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > How arrogant of someone to state that mankind can have a significant long term effect on global climate. Are they really saying that we are more powerful than "Mother Earth"?
> ...


Really? "Strawman"? "Bad Logic"? What, pray tell, does "science" have that proves that "climate change" is more that a normal phase of cyclical climate change? How do they "know" that the change is not normal? Has earth not had this type of climate change before? Think about it, everything in climate changes, always has, what proves that the current change is caused by mankind? As far as I know there are a bunch of theories, but nothing that has been PROVEN. There are symptoms that have been proven to be linked to climate change, there have been causes that have been linked to both climate change and Mankind, but NOTHING PROVES the theory of man-made climate change. That is why it is still no more than a THEORY!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> What climate scientists can you name, pushing to spend trillions of dollars of tax money?
> 
> You seem to be arguing the grand conspiracy: they are lying because they will get rich.  Number one: that is the hypothesis of paranoid fools.  You're not a paranoid fool Todd.  Two, taxes to pay for massive amelioration measures will not make climate scientists rich.
> 
> This comment from Mann can be taken another way: without further research, the claim that climate scientists are doing it to get rich off research grants goes poof, doesn't it.


*
What climate scientists can you name, pushing to spend trillions of dollars of tax money?*

It's not the scientists? It's the politicians using the scientists?
That's a relief.

*You seem to be arguing the grand conspiracy: they are lying because they will get rich.*

The lies are being used to expand government control, taxes and spending.

*Number one: that is the hypothesis of paranoid fools.* 

You're right, the idea that politicians do things to increase their power.......it's just crazy!!!!!

*This comment from Mann can be taken another way: without further research, the claim that climate scientists are doing it to get rich off research grants goes poof, doesn't it.*

How much has Mann made thanks to his phony hockey stick?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> You are already paying for global warming in your taxes. You think that the money for fighting the forest fires comes from some other source? County, city, state, and federal firefighters are paid out of our taxes. The rebuilding of destroyed infrastructure comes out of our taxes. What about the floods on the East side of the nation this year? How much private money goes into rebuilding the roads that were destroyed? How much federal and state money went into emergency shelters for those displaced.
> 
> Yes, Todd, you are going to pay significant tax money for global warming. But the scientists are not getting that money, your neighbors and fellow citizens that have suffered from the increases in fires and floods are the ones getting that money.



*You think that the money for fighting the forest fires comes from some other source?*

Which forest fires were caused by AGW? Please show all your work.

*The rebuilding of destroyed infrastructure comes out of our taxes. What about the floods on the East side of the nation this year?*

Pick a flood. How many inches of that rain were caused by AGW, how many inches were natural?
Please show all your work.

*Yes, Todd, you are going to pay significant tax money for global warming.*

They're going to keep trying, that's for sure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Todd, please tell us why you think the science is compromised by the cost of fighting off global warming?



Please tell us why you think billions in government funding doesn't corrupt scientists.


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2016)

Because it's not going to go to them.  It's going to alternative energy systems, coastal construction, mass transit systems and other ways to reduce our CO2 emissions.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 1, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> How arrogant of someone to state that mankind can have a significant long term effect on global climate. Are they really saying that we are more powerful than "Mother Earth"?





mamooth said:


> No. That's your loopy strawman. It's also a dumb statement because it's meaningless, unless you define "more powerful" and "Mother Earth" precisely. That is, it's fuzzy feelgood nonsense.
> 
> Just some food for thought, if you are still willing to THINK CRITICALLY, and have the ability.
> 
> ...





oldsoul said:


> Really? "Strawman"? "Bad Logic"?


Yup! In spades, dumbshit. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground....as you make very obvious.





oldsoul said:


> What, pray tell, does "science" have that proves that "climate change" is more that a normal phase of cyclical climate change? How do they "know" that the change is not normal? Has earth not had this type of climate change before? Think about it, everything in climate changes, always has, what proves that the current change is caused by mankind? As far as I know there are a bunch of theories, but nothing that has been PROVEN. There are symptoms that have been proven to be linked to climate change, there have been causes that have been linked to both climate change and Mankind, but NOTHING PROVES the theory of man-made climate change. That is why it is still no more than a THEORY!



Ignorant clueless bullshit, bozo.

If you haven't seen the evidence confirming the reality of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and abrupt changes, then you have been deliberately closing your eyes to it because of your crackpot rightwingnut political and economic ideologies.

Pull your head out of your ass and look around, oldfart.

Here is about the ten thousandth scientific study confirming human caused global warming, numbnuts.

*New evidence confirms human activities drive global warming*
*PhysOrg
February 22, 2016 *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Because it's not going to go to them.  It's going to alternative energy systems, coastal construction, mass transit systems and other ways to reduce our CO2 emissions.



Billions in government funding and none of it trickles down to the scientists?


----------



## Crick (Jul 2, 2016)

The man is suggesting that no further research is required.  How else would money "trickle down" to him?  He doesn't build sea walls.  He doesn't design electric cars or smart power grids.  He doesn't build nuclear power plants or photovoltaics.

The money isn't to make people rich, its to pay the cost of dealing with this situation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> The man is suggesting that no further research is required.  How else would money "trickle down" to him?  He doesn't build sea walls.  He doesn't design electric cars or smart power grids.  He doesn't build nuclear power plants or photovoltaics.
> 
> The money isn't to make people rich, its to pay the cost of dealing with this situation.



Obviously the government should listen to this fraudster and stop wasting money on global warming.....errr....climate change....errr....extreme weathering.....errr....whatever the fuck they're calling it now.

*The money isn't to make people rich*

What's Mann's net worth?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2016)

I don't know, and if you cannot present it from a credible source, what purpose does bringing that up serve?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 2, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> What, pray tell, does "science" have that proves that "climate change" is more that a normal phase of cyclical climate change?



The directly observed stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave prove it's not natural, as there's no natural explanation for those things.

It's clear you know very little about the actual science, so you shouldn't be annoying the grownups with your ignorant cult jabber.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> I don't know, and if you cannot present it from a credible source, what purpose does bringing that up serve?



To refute the claim that no one gets rich from lying about the science.


----------



## Crick (Jul 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What's Mann's net worth?



Obviously, Todd, you think he's become unduly rich.  Wikipedia has a rather detailed biography of the Mann. How about giving it a look and telling us where you see opportunity(ies) for him to have done so?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What's Mann's net worth?
> ...



If his wealth is based on his fraudulent hockey stick, isn't unduly a good description?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 3, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well, first of all, you have not established that his claims are fraudulent, second, you have not established that he is wealthy, and third, if he is, you have not established that his wealth came from that source. I am disappointed in you, Todd, you critique of Mann is quite lacking in logic or evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


*
Well, first of all, you have not established that his claims are fraudulent,*

You still believe in his hockey stick? LOL!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 4, 2016)

The Hockey Stick: The Most Controversial Chart in Science, Explained

The hockey stick was repeatedly attacked, and so was Mann himself. Congress got involved, with demands for Mann's data and other information, including a computer code used in his research. Then the National Academy of Sciencesweighed in in 2006, vindicating the hockey stick as good science and noting:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world."

It didn't change the minds of the deniers, though--and soon Mann and his colleagues were drawn into the 2009 "Climategate" pseudo-scandal, which purported to reveal internal emails that (among other things) seemingly undermined the hockey stick. Only, they didn't.

In the meantime, those wacky scientists kept doing what they do best--finding out what's true. As Mann relates, over the years other researchers were able to test his work using "more extensive datasets, and more sophisticated methods. And the bottom line conclusion doesn't change." Thus the single hockey stick gradually became what Mann calls a "hockey team." "If you look at all the different groups, there are literally about two dozen" hockey sticks now, he says.

*Either that, or believe that all the scientists involved in the more than two dozen studies are involved in fraud. What you are claiming is hardly different that what jc, Silly Billy, and LaDexter claim. *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The Hockey Stick: The Most Controversial Chart in Science, Explained
> 
> The hockey stick was repeatedly attacked, and so was Mann himself. Congress got involved, with demands for Mann's data and other information, including a computer code used in his research. Then the National Academy of Sciencesweighed in in 2006, vindicating the hockey stick as good science and noting:
> 
> ...



*The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.
*
Especially when you drop the MWP and LIA. Very impressive!

Is that why he won the Nobel Prize? How much money did he get for that?

*And the bottom line conclusion doesn't change*

Right. Because the lies were for a good cause.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 4, 2016)

And your proof that all the studies were lies is? Careful there, credible sources only


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And your proof that all the studies were lies is? Careful there, credible sources only



I'm mocking Mann, did your honest studies also leave out the MWP and the LIA?

His Nobel Prize was pretty cool. Right?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 4, 2016)

And what is the difference between that and jc, SSDD, LaDexter, and Billy Bob's posts? No substance there, Todd.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And what is the difference between that and jc, SSDD, LaDexter, and Billy Bob's posts? No substance there, Todd.



Pointing out Mann's lies is like jc and SSDD's ignorance of basic physics?

Please, explain further........

Why don't you want to talk about Mann's Nobel Prize?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 4, 2016)

Why don't you point out what you consider lies. You have said this several times already, without offering the slightest proof. And I have pointed out that there are more than two dozen other studies that validate his evidence. Not only that what the hell does the Nobel Prize have to do with you providing evidence for your assertations? And as far as money goes, Micheal Mann, the screen writer has made 45 million dollars for his efforts. Are you going to castigate him for his efforts?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Why don't you point out what you consider lies. You have said this several times already, without offering the slightest proof. And I have pointed out that there are more than two dozen other studies that validate his evidence. Not only that what the hell does the Nobel Prize have to do with you providing evidence for your assertations? And as far as money goes, Micheal Mann, the screen writer has made 45 million dollars for his efforts. Are you going to castigate him for his efforts?


*
Why don't you point out what you consider lies.*

Eliminating the MWP and the LIA to make the recent increase in "Average Global Temperatures" look scarier is a lie.

*And I have pointed out that there are more than two dozen other studies that validate his evidence.*

Did the other studies also leave out the MWP and LIA?

*Not only that what the hell does the Nobel Prize have to do with you providing evidence for your assertations?*

Aren't you interested in Mann's Nobel Prize?

*And as far as money goes, Micheal Mann, the screen writer has made 45 million dollars for his efforts. Are you going to castigate him for his efforts?*

Did he lie about science to make his money?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 4, 2016)

Once again, point out where Mann lied about science. And some sources to back it up.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 4, 2016)

Since I seem to see alot of references about "lying" on this thread.........



Climate guru: Brace for massive cover-up after data rigging scandal


Opinion Journal: Rigging Climate-Change Data?

The scandal of fiddled global warming data


www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Rigging a Climate...


http://www.globalresearch.ca/climat...er-to-falsification-and-rigging-of-data/16448


Is World Climate Data being Manipulated to Show Warming?


Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA - Breitbart


Did NASA and NOAA dramatically alter US climate history to exaggerate global warming?


http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/



Back by popular demand...................


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 4, 2016)

Know what I love about this forum?

I come in here for a cup of coffee each day and decimate these alarmist k00ks and they are in here day and night posting up 100 posts a day and get their clocks cleaned.

I tell ya, its a f'ing  hoot!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again, point out where Mann lied about science. And some sources to back it up.









You see where he put the MWP and the LIA in his hockey stick? Yeah, that's where he lied.

At least he won the Nobel Prize, eh?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

Old Rocks won't even answer the first question of Earth climate change... no need to answer his BS.  The entire "warming" theory is a lie, a deliberate one...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 5, 2016)

*NRC Exonerates "Hockey Stick" Graph, Ending "Mann-Hunt" by Two Canadian Skeptics*

More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.

The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.

In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

“Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence,” the report said.

The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull together widely disparate clues of climate conditions before the age of weather instruments.

The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that gained the nickname “hockey stick” because of its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a sharp upward hook in recent decades.

The hockey stick has become something of an environmentalist icon. It was prominently displayed in a pivotal 2001 United Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human activities had probably caused most of the warming measured since 1950. A version of it is in the Al Gore documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, have repeatedly criticized the Mann study, citing several peer-reviewed papers challenging its methods.

The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

They contended that Dr. Mann and his colleagues selected particular statistical methods and sets of data, like a record of rings in bristlecone pine trees, that were most apt to produce a picture of unusual recent warming. They also complained that Dr. Mann refused to share his data and techniques.

In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.

*But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. “Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings,” he said.*

Raymond S. Bradley, a University of Massachusetts geoscientist and one of Dr. Mann's co-authors, said that the caveats were dropped mainly as the graph was widely reproduced by others. (The other author of the 1999 paper was Malcolm K Hughes of the University of Arizona.)

NRC Exonerates "Hockey Stick" Graph, Ending "Mann-Hunt" by Two Canadian Skeptics

*The period for which the original graph covers clearly shows the end of the MWP as warmer than the period which followed it. Indictations from sea sediments is that the MWP was much weaker for the rest of the world than for Europe. So Mann's graph does not achieve the accuracy of the studies that followed it, but that is normal for seminal studies. It's main premise is accurate, and Mann deserved the recognition that he has received from the scientific community. As for the 'Conservative' political community, they can go to hell. A bunch of brainless ignoramouses, soon to be a sad footnote in history, along with the 'knownothings'.*


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

BAWK - another bogus "hearing" "clears" one of the fudgebaking liars.

Meanwhile, 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica continues to grow, and the ice cores show no correlation between CO2 and temps.  The FRAUD had the chance to appeal, and chose not to... because court can bust FRAUD, while government "committees" never do...


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *NRC Exonerates "Hockey Stick" Graph, Ending "Mann-Hunt" by Two Canadian Skeptics*
> 
> More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.
> 
> ...


Climate Change Scammers Find Climate Change Scam Valid, Film@11


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2016)

*So Mann's graph does not achieve the accuracy of the studies that followed it
*
Or the studies before it, because he removed the MWP and the LIA.

At least he has a Nobel Prize though, eh?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

Mann's hockey stick chart is an ALGORithm that produces a hockey stick regardless of the data input.

Michael Crichton proved that.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 5, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You see where he put the MWP and the LIA in his hockey stick? Yeah, that's where he lied.



No, it's where you're tellling whoppers about Dr. Mann, the MWP and the LIA. That only reflects badly on you, not Dr. Mann.

You're babbling cult nonsense. Yes, it gets you accolades from your fellow cultists, but everyone outside of your cult knows it's garbage. Hence, it's pointless.

Also, you should stop obsessing about Dr. Mann. Attacking personalities obsessively instead of talking about issues is a cultist tactic, and those who use that tactic reveal themselves to be cultists. You want to hide that, not advertise it.

Oh, this too.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

Mammooo...

how come you are not at the "Hillary's not going to prison" party???


----------



## mamooth (Jul 5, 2016)

Good to hear from you, LaDexter. I was worried you might have offed yourself, out of utter despair that yet another one of your insane conspiracy theories fell apart.

And thanks for yet another illustration of how denialism is entirely a political movement. We're here talking about the science, and for no reason, you decide to start going off about politics


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 5, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > How arrogant of someone to state that mankind can have a significant long term effect on global climate. Are they really saying that we are more powerful than "Mother Earth"?
> ...


I will put aside your lack common decentcy for a moment and ask you what should be a simple question, and please refrain from name calling and other means of trying to demean people who disagree with you.

If "Man-made Climate Change" is, indeed, a reality, what are the levels of CO2, CO, and other "greenhouse gasses" that would be acceptable? What levels should these gasses be at? Where would they be if man-kind had not "altered" them?

I anxiously await your numbers.


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > What, pray tell, does "science" have that proves that "climate change" is more that a normal phase of cyclical climate change?
> ...


Could you rephrase that without the insults, please? I trust this won't be a problem for a self described "grown-up".


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> one of your insane conspiracy theories fell apart.




Sorry, all "conspiracy theories" are still 100% intact, especially the top 2....


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 5, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...


Still waiting.....


----------



## mamooth (Jul 5, 2016)

> Could you rephrase that without the insults, please? I trust this won't be a problem for a self described "grown-up".



Grow up. If you're going to be so insulting by being so patronizing, you have no grounds to cry about getting it back.

Now, let's get back to the issue you're trying so hard to run from.

The directly observed stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave radiation have no conceivable natural causes, and show that the current global warming is not natural.

Hence, your "It's a natural cycle!" theory has been conclusively disproved.

And if you don't want to discuss that, feel free to deflect again by crying. I'll take that as your surrender.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 5, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> If "Man-made Climate Change" is, indeed, a reality, what are the levels of CO2, CO, and other "greenhouse gasses" that would be acceptable? What levels should these gasses be at? Where would they be if man-kind had not "altered" them?



If mankind hadn't altered it, CO2 would be around 280 ppm.

It's currently at 400 ppm and rising.

Climate has currently warmed by about 1.0C since the start of the industrial age.

If we stabilize at 450 ppm, we _might_ be able to hold it at a final 2.0C temperature rise.

2.0C is not good, but it's not catastrophic. Economic costs start going up exponentially above 2.0C, so it's not something we want to blow through.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > If "Man-made Climate Change" is, indeed, a reality, what are the levels of CO2, CO, and other "greenhouse gasses" that would be acceptable? What levels should these gasses be at? Where would they be if man-kind had not "altered" them?
> ...


So how do you know such a thing when it was much higher in the past. So just more boredom from liars who wish they had a crystal ball. Instead you have manic eight ball and I laugh.

Then after all that you can't even show it affects anything to even be discussing global warming. Hahahaha


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> If mankind hadn't altered it, CO2 would be around 280 ppm.
> 
> It's currently at 400 ppm and rising.




... and not one net molecule of ice melt, as 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has grown straight through Algore's FRAUD, and the highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data continue to show precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere.

Evidence CO2 causes warming = cherry picking, fudge, and FRAUD


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> > Could you rephrase that without the insults, please? I trust this won't be a problem for a self described "grown-up".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I refuse to attempt to have a grown-up discussion with a person who is apparently incapable of disagreement without insult. Thanks for your input, and good bye.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> The man is suggesting that no further research is required.  How else would money "trickle down" to him?  He doesn't build sea walls.  He doesn't design electric cars or smart power grids.  He doesn't build nuclear power plants or photovoltaics.
> 
> The money isn't to make people rich, its to pay the cost of dealing with this situation.




Seriously crick trying to bullshit again?

*We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” ~Edenhofer.

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 6, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The man is suggesting that no further research is required.  How else would money "trickle down" to him?  He doesn't build sea walls.  He doesn't design electric cars or smart power grids.  He doesn't build nuclear power plants or photovoltaics.
> ...




I forgot to quote my favorite AGW cult nut job...

"Meeting science-based [carbon] targets will mean forcing some of the most profitable companies on the planet to forfeit trillions of dollars of future earnings by leaving the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves in the ground. It will also require coming up with *trillions more to pay for zero-carbon*, disaster-ready societal transformations... if climate justice carries the day, theeconomic costs to our elites will be real." ~ Naomi klien





.


----------



## Crick (Jul 6, 2016)

And where in either of your statements does it even suggest that those billions will go to scientists to conduct further research?  As I stated, the vast bulk of that money is going to deal with the situation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...


OK, you pose and interesting question. It is not just the numbers for the GHGs that are a problem, but the rate of change. A rapid delta v does not give the biology of this planet time to adapt. That is why we see extinction events in prior times when there were rapid changes in the GHGs, both up and down. 

Now, with over 7 billion mouths to feed, our agriculture is even more vulnerable to a rapid changing climate than the natural flora and fauna. Accurately, we don't know at what point that the change will become a danger to the survival of a great many people. The insurance companies in the world have already issued warnings that we are seeing more serious and extreme weather events. And the real kicker is that what we are seeing today is not the result of the GHGs in the atmosphere at present, but is the result of the GHGs in the atmosphere 30 to 50 years ago.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> I refuse to attempt to have a grown-up discussion with a person who is apparently incapable of disagreement without insult. Thanks for your input, and good bye.



Does that mean you're not going to address the directly observed hard data that shows your "It's a natural cycle!" theory is totally wrong?

How convenient.

I can see why you're so flustered. You're not used to being called out on your patronizing jackass routine. Insulting people and then crying about insults had always worked for you before, but it's backfiring on you, so now we're seeing your backside vanishing in the distance.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


*A rapid delta v does not give the biology of this planet time to adapt. That is why we see extinction events in prior times when there were rapid changes in the GHGs, both up and down.*

Where's your evidence of that?  do you have a historical record to show how CO2 can control anything?  you know you don't.  Thanks for opening the door for me.

The OP is not proven.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2016)

mamooth said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > I refuse to attempt to have a grown-up discussion with a person who is apparently incapable of disagreement without insult. Thanks for your input, and good bye.
> ...


what is it you see on TV about global warming?  Explain your position on this.

I see weatherpersons using temperature index rather than temperatures to show how warm they think it is.  Funny stuff.  So yours?


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Now, I am confused. How does change in GHGs 30-50 years ago affect our climate, and therefore weather, today? You state that there is an increase in severity and quantity of weather events. So where was the energy for these stored? What evidence, as in links, do you have to substantiate your claims?


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 7, 2016)

mamooth said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > I refuse to attempt to have a grown-up discussion with a person who is apparently incapable of disagreement without insult. Thanks for your input, and good bye.
> ...


I will discuss your points when you can prove that you are capable of such a discussion without further insults.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 7, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...


http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.pdf

A final nail in the coffin of scientific skepticism came in 2005, when a team compiled accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world's ocean basins. It was not in the air but the massive oceans, after all, that most of any heat added would soon wind up. Indeed natural fluctuations had kept air temperatures roughly the same since the late 1990s; the significant question was whether the oceans were continuing to warm. The team found that over many decades the planet's content of heat-energy had been rising, and was rising still (this continued after 2005 as well). There was only one remotely plausible source of the colossal addition of energy: the Earth must be taking in more energy from sunlight than it was radiating back into space. Simple physics calculated that to heat all that sea water required nearly an extra watt per square meter, averaged over the planet's entire surface, year after year. The number was just what the elaborate greenhouse effect computations had been predicting for decades. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies, called the visible increase of the planet's heat content a "smoking gun" proof of greenhouse effect warming (see graph below). Moreover, in each separate ocean basin there was a close match between the pattern of rising temperatures measured at each location and depth and detailed model calculations of where the greenhouse effect warming should appear. Warming from other sources, for example a change in the Sun's output, could not produce these patterns. Evidently the modelers were on the right track.(56)

*Very simply, most of the heat goes into the ocean. And then the oceans warm the atmosphere. That is one source of the lag. Another is that it takes time to melt permafrost and ice. And the results of that melting are more GHGs in the atmosphere, and more warming of the polar waters. 

The site, by the way, is a product of the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 7, 2016)

*Time-dependent climate sensitivity and the legacy of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions*

Richard E. Zeebe1
Author Affiliations


Edited by Robert E. Dickinson, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved July 9, 2013 (received for review February 8, 2013)


Abstract
Full Text
Authors & Info
Figures
SI
Metrics
Related Content
PDF
PDF + SI


*Abstract*
Climate sensitivity measures the response of Earth’s surface temperature to changes in forcing. The response depends on various climate processes that feed back on the initial forcing on different timescales. Understanding climate sensitivity is fundamental to reconstructing Earth’s climatic history as well as predicting future climate change. On timescales shorter than centuries, only fast climate feedbacks including water vapor, lapse rate, clouds, and snow/sea ice albedo are usually considered. However, on timescales longer than millennia, the generally higher Earth system sensitivity becomes relevant, including changes in ice sheets, vegetation, ocean circulation, biogeochemical cycling, etc. Here, I introduce the time-dependent climate sensitivity, which unifies fast-feedback and Earth system sensitivity. I show that warming projections, which include a time-dependent climate sensitivity, exhibit an enhanced feedback between surface warming and ocean CO2 solubility, which in turn leads to higher atmospheric CO2 levels and further warming. Compared with earlier studies, my results predict a much longer lifetime of human-induced future warming (23,000–165,000 y), which increases the likelihood of large ice sheet melting and major sea level rise. The main point regarding the legacy of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is that, even if the fast-feedback sensitivity is no more than 3 K per CO2 doubling, there will likely be additional long-term warming from slow climate feedbacks. Time-dependent climate sensitivity also helps explaining intense and prolonged warming in response to massive carbon release as documented for past events such as the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.

Time-dependent climate sensitivity and the legacy of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions

*A paper from the National Academies of Science.*


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2016)

CO2

Abstract:
"In the official bogus "Greenhouse" theory with the "opaque to IR" glass, there is no stated mechanism by which a greenhouse can achieve equilibrium because as long as there is daylight, the ground will absorb SW energy and re-emit that as LW energy and the "greenhouse gases" will continue to absorb. This is explained away by the use of other fallacious terms such as "non-participating gases" and "logarithmic absorption". The sticking point with such fallacies is simply that any substance above 0 K is emitting IR. Infra-red is emitted at the speed of light. If a substance emits energy at the speed of light, it must be absorbing energy at the speed of light because if it were not then the "energy budget" for that substance would be net negative and the substance in question would quickly become frozen. This has been substantiated by experiments with solar ovens, which show how they can be used to make ice as well as cook food.

Logarithmic absorption by "Greenhouse Gases" is simply another device employed by the AGW fraud wizards to confuse the unsuspecting, it cannot be applied to a variable energy source such as the Sun."


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Interesting. I am still not convinced though. There was no mention of the myriad of other variables such as, but not limited to:

Earth's non-constant orbit.
Where the "original" increase of GHGs came from.
Changes in Earth's mass.
The effects of lunar orbit (i.e. it's constant slowing, and therefore coming closer and closer to Earth).
Sources of energy not related to the sun.
Other natural variable not, yet, explained by modern science.
In effect what I am questioning is: What indisputable proof is there that this phenomenon could not be possible without man-kind's influence? Of course I do not refer to "far-fetched" ideas such as, but not limited to, other intelligent life influencing Earth. Is it, indeed, possible that science has yet to discover the real cause? If that is not, then what evidence is there? Another member suggested phenomena that science has yet to explain any natural causes for. Does this, conclusively prove they are caused by man-kind? No more than me standing in a garage makes me a car.
 At one time all natural disasters where thought to be the work of a deity of one type or another, until science discovered that to be false. What would science look like today if those discoveries had not been made simply because it was already decided what the causes where?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> A final nail in the coffin of scientific skepticism came in 2005, when a team compiled accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world's ocean basins.




Translation - in 2005, the two and only two readings of atmospheric temps both showed no warming, and hence were FUDGED with uncorrelated "corrections" = documented here many times.  The oceans also showed precisely no warming, and in 2005 ocean temps were FUDGED too.

Warmers like to call their FUDGING the "nail in the coffin of skeptics," which once again reinforces the truth that Earth is not warming, and those behind Algore's FRAUD simply FUDGE that truth away, and claim that discredits "skeptics."  It doesn't.  The only warming on Earth in the raw data is from the surface of growing urban areas due to Urban Heat Sink Effect.  Everything else is as follows

1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
2. NO WARMING in the oceans
3. NO net ice melt
4. NO breakout in 'cane activity
5. NO WARMING on the surface of Antarctica, Siberia, and every other location without growing urban areas

NOTHING except THE DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT ON THE SURFACE GROUND TEMPERATURE SERIES


----------



## Crick (Jul 8, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> Interesting. I am still not convinced though.



Then we can only conclude that you are either ignoring the evidence, do not understand the evidence or are rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.



oldsoul said:


> There was no mention of the myriad of other variables such as, but not limited to:
> 
> Earth's non-constant orbit.



Milankovitch cycles are well studied, easily propagated (ie, future effects are well known) and their impact on global warming is taken fully into account.



oldsoul said:


> Where the "original" increase of GHGs came from.



Virtually every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750) was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.  If you mean something else by ""original" increase", you will have to explain.



oldsoul said:


> Changes in Earth's mass.



What changes in Earth's mass?  And what effect do you believe that would have on global temperature?



oldsoul said:


> The effects of lunar orbit (i.e. it's constant slowing, and therefore coming closer and closer to Earth).



You've got the direction incorrect.  The moon is moving further and further away from the Earth.  It has been doing so since it formed and thus has no relation to an effect which began in the early 1900s.



oldsoul said:


> Sources of energy not related to the sun.



Which would be what?  Other stars?  The momentum of the planets? Magic?  God? Demons?



oldsoul said:


> Other natural variable not, yet, explained by modern science.



What natural variables do you believe are not yet explained by modern science?  Which of these do you believe might be warming the planet and what makes you think so?


oldsoul said:


> In effect what I am questioning is: What indisputable proof is there that this phenomenon could not be possible without man-kind's influence?



There is no "indisputale proof" and there never will be.  Proofs are something found in mathematics and logic.  There are no proofs in the natural sciences.  You're just going to have to get used to it.



oldsoul said:


> Of course I do not refer to "far-fetched" ideas such as, but not limited to, other intelligent life influencing Earth.



But you have already referred to several ideas that have nothing to do with global warming, that could have nothing to do with global warming or that are simply unknown.  Just because you're not suggesting alien warfare, do not think you're staying close to mainstream science.  You're not.



oldsoul said:


> Is it, indeed, possible that science has yet to discover the real cause?



Of course it is "possible", but the odds of that being the case are infinitesimal.



oldsoul said:


> If that is not, then what evidence is there?



Evidence?  Let's see: the anthropogenic origin of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750. The calculated warming produced by that amount of gas added to the atmosphere matching the observed warming. The strong correlation between CO2 and temperature.  The historical correlation between CO2 and temperature (in both directions).  The observed increase in the radiative imbalance at the top of Earth's atmosphere.  The observed back-radiation from the night sky bearing the spectroscopic signature of CO2.  If you'd like to look at some evidence, go to www.ipcc.ch and pull up "The Physical Science Basis", by the IPCC's Working Group I.  There are mountains of evidence supporting that the Earth is warming and the primary cause of that warming is human activity (GHG emissions and deforestation).



oldsoul said:


> Another member suggested phenomena that science has yet to explain any natural causes for. Does this, conclusively prove they are caused by man-kind? No more than me standing in a garage makes me a car.



Man is not credited with global warming because no other cause has been found.  Greenhouse warming is a known effect.  Numerous other possibilities: changes in clouds, cosmic rays, changes in solar irradiation, changes in ocean circulation, etc, etc, etc have been examined and found wanting.  The theory that warming is being caused by human emissions of CO2 methane and other greenhouse gases has never been falsified.  It is accepted by almost 100% of the world's climate scientists.  It is _widely accepted theory, _like many others that none of you think to question.



oldsoul said:


> At one time all natural disasters where thought to be the work of a deity of one type or another, until science discovered that to be false. What would science look like today if those discoveries had not been made simply because it was already decided what the causes where?



Science has concluded that the most likely explanation for the warming observed over the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation.  That conclusion is NOT based on anyone's arbitrary decisions or a lack of evidence for this specific cause.  Mountains of properly done science indicate this is the case.  An enormous majority of the actual experts in this field accept this conclusion as correct - based on the EVIDENCE.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> An enormous majority of the actual experts in this field accept this conclusion as correct - based on the EVIDENCE.




FUDGE FRAUD and CHERRY PICKING is not "evidence."  

Your BS "majority of the actual experts" cannot explain why Greenland froze while North America thawed over the past 1 million years at the same time with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, proving CO2 had NOTHING TO DO WITH EITHER...


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> An enormous majority of the actual experts in this field accept this conclusion [AGW] as correct - based on the EVIDENCE.



If someone out there believes they have evidence to refute THIS STATEMENT, please come forward.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

The EVIDENCE is that Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that CO2 had NOTHING to do with either event, and that "climate change" is much more continent specific than the "warmers" want people to believe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The EVIDENCE is that Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that CO2 had NOTHING to do with either event, and that "climate change" is much more continent specific than the "warmers" want people to believe.



* The EVIDENCE is that Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
*
It's weird, it's almost as though they were located in different spots on the planet. DERP!


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

No, they are right next to each other.  What changed?  About 20-50 miles.  Greenland moves NW, and NA moves SW (actually the same tangent on a sphere).  Greenland got to that point about 600 miles from an Earth pole where the annual winter snow fails to fully melt, and then it starts to STACK, and it has been STACKIN ever since...

NA moved out of that "glacier manufacturing zone" except for Ellesmere Island, which is still in "ice age" today.  Also helping to melt NA was the last Yellowstone eruption 640k years ago...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> No, they are right next to each other.  What changed?  About 20-50 miles.  Greenland moves NW, and NA moves SW (actually the same tangent on a sphere).  Greenland got to that point about 600 miles from an Earth pole where the annual winter snow fails to fully melt, and then it starts to STACK, and it has been STACKIN ever since...
> 
> NA moved out of that "glacier manufacturing zone" except for Ellesmere Island, which is still in "ice age" today.  Also helping to melt NA was the last Yellowstone eruption 640k years ago...



*No, they are right next to each other*

Right next to each other?
North America extends all the way south down to Panama.

You don't think temps down there should be the same as up north in Alaska, do you?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

LOL!!!

Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago.  That's why Canada froze before Greenland.  You are correct that the closer you get to a pole, the colder it is.  The question is what happens to land when it gets within 600 miles of an Earth pole.  Today we have two data points that answer that question

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on Greenland

One million years ago, NA had glaciers entirely covering Canada and down through Indiana.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago.  That's why Canada froze before Greenland.  You are correct that the closer you get to a pole, the colder it is.  The question is what happens to land when it gets within 600 miles of an Earth pole.  Today we have two data points that answer that question
> 
> ...



Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago. That's why Canada froze before Greenland.

Your claim that NA and Greenland are right next to each other make you sound even dumber than usual.

Which is kind of difficult. So congrats!!!

What will you do to beat that? I'm sure we'll see soon.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2016)

A fucking blog, no real scientists involved. jc is up to his usual nonsense.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago.  That's why Canada froze before Greenland.  You are correct that the closer you get to a pole, the colder it is.  The question is what happens to land when it gets within 600 miles of an Earth pole.  Today we have two data points that answer that question
> 
> ...


*Canada was frozen over 50 million years ago?*

This giant, flightless bird roamed Canada's North 50 million years ago






Meet Gastornis, a giant, flightless bird that roamed around what's now known as Nunavut, munching on nuts and seeds more than 50 million years ago. (Illustration by Marlin Peterson/University of Colorado Boulder)

1345 shares




Facebook




Twitter




Reddit




Google




Share




Email
*Related Stories*

Tiny new hedgehog found in B.C. excites paleontologists
Ancient carnivore ancestor was small woodland mammal
Oldest fossil sperm ever found left by Antarctic leeches
More than 50 million years ago, Canada's Arctic was a warm, wet place, home to alligators, giant tortoises and — as it now turns out — giant, flightless birds.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...


 OK, let me address them.

*Earth's non-constant orbit
*
Milankovic Cycles;

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

*Where the original increases in GHGs came from
*
Speaking in terms of increases and decreases for the last ice ages;

An Astronomical Perspective on Climate Change - Universe Today

*Changes in the Earth's mass.
*
No significant changes in the Earth's mass since the Hadean.

*Affects of the lunar orbit\

Lunar distance (astronomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Moon is spiraling away from the Earth at an average rate of 3.8 cm (1.5 in) per year, as detected by the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.[9][10][11] By coincidence, the diameter of corner cubes in retroreflectors on the Moon is also 3.8 cm.[12][13]*

In terms of the 150 years that we have been observing the increase in warming, the change in the Moons orbit is insignificant.

*Sources of energy not related to the sun
*
None known at present that could even begin to account for the increase in warmth.

*Other natural variable not yet known by science. 
*
A possibility, increasingly unlikely as the scientists are investigating the rates and cause of the warming intensively, considering the consequences are unknown, and the chaotic nature of climate and weather.

Right now, we see no other influence that would account for the magnitude of the warming other than the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. I would say that science has discovered a real cause. 

Here is a paper from 35 years ago that makes what the people of that day considered to be alarmist predictions. At least read the abstract, and consider the predictions were actually for the end of the 21st century. If you care to read the whole paper, it has the numbers for the forcings from CO2.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago. That's why Canada froze before Greenland.
> 
> Your claim that NA and Greenland are right next to each other make you sound even dumber than usual.




Indeed, you just admitted that climate change is continent specific, that "ice ages" aren't everything freezing, but specific continents freezing.  If that is the case - continent specific climate change - then the atmosphere is RULED OUT AS A SUSPECT for the cause.  Thanks for helping to prove that CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Canada was where Greenland is today about 50 million years ago. That's why Canada froze before Greenland.
> ...



*Indeed, you just admitted that climate change is continent specific*

No, I pointed out that North America and Greenland aren't right next to each other.
Claiming they should have the same climate has to be one of the dumber things you've said.
*
then the atmosphere is RULED OUT AS A SUSPECT for the cause.*

I'd think the area closer to the pole is cooler, no matter what the CO2 level.
The CO2 level is not the cause of their different locations on the globe.


*Thanks for helping to prove.....*

that you're an idiot? I couldn't have done it without you.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 10, 2016)

LMAO!!!

You seem to admit Greenland moves NW and is cooling by moving NW - correct?

If so, what does CO2 have to do with that??

North America is moving SW - and warming by moving away from the pole - what does CO2 have to do with that?


If you accept that the tectonic plate movement is what drives Earth climate change by adding and subtracting land near the poles, we don't disagree, and neither did the FBI in 2009...

Two polar oceans = Earth with no ice = warm Earth parameter
Two polar continents = cool Earth parameter

Any questions...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> LMAO!!!
> 
> You seem to admit Greenland moves NW and is cooling by moving NW - correct?
> 
> ...



*You seem to admit Greenland moves NW and is cooling by moving NW - correct?*

If that moves it closer to the pole, yes, over millions of years that, by itself, would cool Greenland compared to its former position.

*If so, what does CO2 have to do with that??*

CO2 does not cause continental drift.
*
If you accept that the tectonic plate movement is what drives Earth climate change*

We're more interested in climate changes over periods shorter than millions of years.

*Any questions...*

Yes. Why did you claim NA and Greenland were right next to each other.
Why do you feel their "nearness" means they should have the same climate?


----------



## JBond (Jul 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> 
> Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.
> 
> ...



I thought it was a click bait topic until I realized the thread title is accurate. Lol. There are some nut jobs out there. Making excuses for his failed models by advising us to watch TV is amusing, but should not be taken seriously.


----------



## Crick (Jul 11, 2016)

Some nutjobs?

Perhaps you ought to read the man's actual statements and review the history of the anthropogenic global warming debate.


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. I am still not convinced though.
> ...





Crick said:


> It is _widely accepted theory, _


Yes, a theory. So are you suggesting we should change our way of life based on a theory? That, to me, is madness.



Crick said:


> Then we can only conclude that you are either ignoring the evidence, do not understand the evidence or are rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.


Yes, non-scientific reasons. I agree, it is my belief that many of the so-called "objective experts" are not objective at all. Many, on BOTH sides of the issue, bring biases an preconceived conclusions to their studies and therefore form their studies in order to "prove" their notions to be correct.



Crick said:


> Virtually every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750) was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.





Crick said:


> What changes in Earth's mass? And what effect do you believe that would have on global temperature?


According to the "big bang THEORY" the universe has been expanding for some time now, the time-table is irrelevant. Matter has been moving around at very high speeds, and there is evidence that there is a what is referred to as "dark matter". Very little is known about "dark matter" and "dark energy" or how they affect stellar bodies, such as Earth. Other matter and energy "impacts" with earth on a regular basis, what effects, if any, does this have on weather and climate?



Crick said:


> Which would be what? Other stars? The momentum of the planets? Magic? God? Demons?


"dark matter" and "dark energy", of which we know almost nothing, would be two examples. X-rays, and Gamma rays would be two more.



Crick said:


> What natural variables do you believe are not yet explained by modern science? Which of these do you believe might be warming the planet and what makes you think so?


"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are two examples, of which we know almost nothing. SO, I have no idea if they have any effect, or how much if they do. Do you?



Crick said:


> There is no "indisputale proof" and there never will be. Proofs are something found in mathematics and logic. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. You're just going to have to get used to it.


Not, exactly accurate. There is plenty of proof in natural science. The earth is an imperfect sphere, earth travels around the sun, etc.., etc..



Crick said:


> But you have already referred to several ideas that have nothing to do with global warming, that could have nothing to do with global warming *or that are simply unknown*. Just because you're not suggesting alien warfare, do not think you're staying close to mainstream science. You're not


That are simply unknown, there enlies my point. What we do not yet know is very important. It may prove to be irrelevant, but that remains to be seen. So, to say "we know enough to make a decisive conclusion." is just, scientifically speaking, irresponsible at best.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> Some nutjobs?
> 
> Perhaps you ought to read the man's actual statements and review the history of the anthropogenic global warming debate.



I'd love to review the history of the hockey stick.

And Mann's Nobel Prize.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> Some nutjobs?
> 
> Perhaps you ought to read the man's actual statements and review the history of the anthropogenic global warming debate.


*Perhaps you ought to read the man's actual statements and review the history of the anthropogenic global warming debate.*
That it's all made up?  I agree.


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 11, 2016)

If, in fact, the data actually does show that there is a man-made warming trend, then please explain why Forbes(Doctored Data, Not U.S. Temperatures, Set a Record This Year), Pricipa-Scientific(NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International), and others have found that the "data" to support such a claim was "doctored"? Not only that, but the raw data actually shows a cooling over the last 80 years or so.

Also, I recently saw an article about the "ozone hole", and how it suddenly increased in 2007 to a historic high, then dropped again in '08. This spike has yet, to the best of my knowledge, to be explained. I have not been able to recall where I saw the article, but am still looking. I will provide the link as soon as I find it again.


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 11, 2016)

I was remembering the year incorrectly, it was 2002 apparently.


----------



## Crick (Jul 11, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...



A relatively simple article explaining how we know that humans produced almost every bit of the 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/


the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory.  It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated.  I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.  You would have to reject almost everything we know about the world and the universe around us.  

You need to do some reading on basic science and how it is used.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I still don't understand why you state that, you have no evidence that CO2 is bad. Why not start there?. Post the experiment


----------



## Crick (Jul 11, 2016)

jc, you're constant repetition of that question is beginning to push you towards troll-hood.  You've been presented with butt-tons of evidence.  We get that you're going to reject everything that's presented to you until someone figures out how to put the planet Earth into a laboratory and do an experiment with it.  That would be trolling.

Move on.  Find something else to talk about.  If that's really the ONLY thing you can think to pester us with, maybe its time to give up the conversation.  Go to Politics or Current Events or the YMCA or the park.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc, you're constant repetition of that question is beginning to push you towards troll-hood.  You've been presented with butt-tons of evidence.  We get that you're going to reject everything that's presented to you until someone figures out how to put the planet Earth into a laboratory and do an experiment with it.  That would be trolling.
> 
> Move on.  Find something else to talk about.  If that's really the ONLY thing you can think to pester us with, maybe its time to give up the conversation.  Go to Politics or Current Events or the YMCA or the park.


dude, I haven't seen one experiment in this forum, not one that shows CO2 doing anything to a temperature set.  you've been told that repeatedly and not just by me.  So, which is it?  Do you have that experiment or not?  you keep making the comments, and yet haven't produced the evidence.  Sorry bubba.

What is it you believe I see outside my windows that screams at me climate change?  I've also asked for somewhere where climate has actually changed in our lifetime.  zippppppp.  So now you're 0 for 2.  Please don't mislead others who may visit this forum with the nonsense that you have submitted or posted relevant material.  nope.


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.


Wrong. My argument is based on the concept that we simply do not understand ALL of the variables that may or may not affect weather and climate. To act on any theory or proven natural law, without FULLY understanding it, is what is absurd. The "warmers", many of whom where "coolers" in the '70's, have proven themselves wrong so often that it is wise to question ANYTHNG they say.
Examples:

CFC's are depleting the ozone. Then, unexpectedly, and unexplainably, the ozone hole grew in 2002, despite a decades long ban on CFCs.
The earth is cooling due to man-kind. Then the earth is warming due to man-kind. Which is it?
Polar ice caps are shrinking. Then a group of "experts" are trapped in Antarctica by ice that, by their assertion, should not have been there.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We're more interested in climate changes over periods shorter than millions of years.



If you are talking decades, then you are really confined to asteroid/meteor hits, huge volcanic activity, and possibly nuclear war, that's it.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 12, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.
> ...


now wait, Crick stated those scientist deliberately went into that ice so they could investigate the ice.  Now let's be fair here.  The scientists wanted to get stuck.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 12, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.
> ...



Which is what Crick just said. Being you don't apply that standard to anything else, it's a hypocritical standard, as well as a dumb one.



> The "warmers", many of whom where "coolers" in the '70's



Totally wrong. Only Dr Reid Bryson, a hardcore denier, was pushing the cooling theory. Everyone else called for warming.

Yes, I realize the denier cult fails to inform its acolytes of such things. You need to grasp that you cult has been deliberately misinforming you for many years.



> have proven themselves wrong so often that it is wise to question ANYTHING they say.
> 
> CFC's are depleting the ozone. Then, unexpectedly, and unexplainably, the ozone hole grew in 2002, despite a decades long ban on CFCs.


It's only your unsupported claim that the expansion was "unexpected" or "unexplainable." You making up stories only means that you make stuff up, not that the science is bad. Try to get info from somewhere besides conspiracy blogs.


> The earth is cooling due to man-kind. Then the earth is warming due to man-kind. Which is it?


Warming, of course. Again, only the failures on your side predicted cooling.


> Polar ice caps are shrinking. Then a group of "experts" are trapped in Antarctica by ice that, by their assertion, should not have been there.


A ship can get trapped in both more or less abundant ice conditions, so it's just stupid to point to such an incident, as it proves nothing. And nobody asserted ice "should not have been there". That's another of your strawmen.

So, you got 3 out of 3 wrong there. By your own standards, since you have proven yourself wrong so often, it is wise to question anything you say.

Hmm. Who to choose. Complete failures like you and your cult, or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades. dang, that's a tough one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


*
or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades.*

Everything right?

Like Mann's lying hockey stick?

Well at least he won the Nobel Prize, eh?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 12, 2016)

I bet it stings, Todd, seeing your side's thug tactics against Dr. Mann fail so badly.

Did you have a plan B? Probably not. "Make an example everyone who disagrees with TheParty!" was all you had. And it failed. Bummer.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Seriously Crick linking Michael Mann's blog...real climate?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> I bet it stings, Todd, seeing your side's thug tactics against Dr. Mann fail so badly.
> 
> Did you have a plan B? Probably not. "Make an example everyone who disagrees with TheParty!" was all you had. And it failed. Bummer.



* I bet it stings, Todd, seeing your side's thug tactics against Dr. Mann fail so badly.
*
Pointing out his lies were thug tactics? How's that?

*Did you have a plan B?*

Pointing out warmer lies is Plan A, Plan B and Plan C.

Pointing out their weak understanding of economics is Plan D.

*And it failed. Bummer.*

We couldn't stop Mann's Nobel Prize, eh?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.





oldsoul said:


> Wrong. My argument is based on the concept that we simply do not understand ALL of the variables that may or may not affect weather and climate. To act on any theory or proven natural law, without FULLY understanding it, is what is absurd.





mamooth said:


> Which is what Crick just said. Being you don't apply that standard to anything else, it's a hypocritical standard, as well as a dumb one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> ...or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades.
> 
> Everything right?
> 
> ...



In the real world, ToadTheParrot, you are a clueless moron and Dr. Mann is a highly respected, world famous, top tier scientist with many awards and the praise of his peers. His hockey-stick graph is accurate and has been completely confirmed by many other independent scientific studies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...


*
Dr. Mann is a highly respected, world famous, top tier scientist with many awards*

Like the Nobel Prize?

*His hockey-stick graph is accurate*

Except for the parts where he leaves out the MWP and the LIA.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.
> ...



Lmfao ...Michael mann is the biggest fucking jerk off control freak manipulation of data the science world has ever seen.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 12, 2016)

Hmm. Who to trust ...

The actual facts, and all the world's scientists 

or ...

A couple of weepy cultists who are just mouthing the approved PC mantras of their political cult.

Let me think about that.

In the mean time, since the thug tactics of you cultists have still failed, why don't you think up some new tactics? You're not going to be able to send any climate scientists to The Gulag. You need to accept that and move on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Hmm. Who to trust ...
> 
> The actual facts, and all the world's scientists
> 
> ...


*
In the mean time, since the thug tactics of you cultists have still failed*

Which thug tactics?
Failed how?

*You're not going to be able to send any climate scientists to The Gulag.*

It's warmers trying to send people to the Gulag, not me.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Hmm. Who to trust ...
> 
> The actual facts, and all the world's scientists
> 
> ...



Your ilk is trying real hard to destroy the 1st amendment and use Rico to send us to the gulags


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Hmm. Who to trust ...
> The actual facts, and all the world's scientists
> or ...
> A couple of weepy cultists who are just mouthing the approved PC mantras of their political cult.
> ...





bear513 said:


> Your ilk is trying real hard to destroy the 1st amendment and use Rico to send us to the gulags



Another lunatic myth of your astro-turfed cult, imbecile.

Lying to the public about life and death issues for your own personal profit is not legally protected 'free speech', no matter what lies your corporate puppet-masters tell you.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm. Who to trust ...
> ...



You never gave me one example...

My proof to you we learned about climate change in 2nd grade text books. We were never not bombarded by fossil fuel controlled media that climate change was not real.
.
We all know the fucking weather changes.....

The question has always been how does man go out of his way to effect it and what cost to society must we limit it...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > What, pray tell, does "science" have that proves that "climate change" is more that a normal phase of cyclical climate change?
> ...


Wow... An idiot calling someone else what it is....

That reflection is you snageltooth.. Talking about ignorance, your display of it is funny as hell to watch..  Your claims that CO2 is causing everything is shear left wing lunacy and fun to watch..  That dance is old however and the lies debunked..


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2016)

Not by any evidence you've presented.  And what the fuck is "shear left wing lunacy"?  Weren't you corrected on that word just yesterday?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm. Who to trust ...
> ...


No Todd, you know that is not true. The AG of Virginia, a Republican, actually was going to try to charge Dr. Mann for fraud. You are going to try someone for publishing a scientific paper with which you disagree in public court for fraud? That is exactly like the old Soviet Union.

There have been more than a dozen studies which have verified the Mann Graph. Refined it a great deal, and none of them show the worldwide effects of the MWP as warmer than today. Are you suggesting that we throw every one of those scientists in jail for fraud, and attempt to extradict those scientists who are not US citizens?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


*
The AG of Virginia, a Republican, actually was going to try to charge Dr. Mann for fraud.*

Did he commit fraud?

*You are going to try someone for publishing a scientific paper with which you disagree in public court for fraud?*

Only if they commit fraud.

*There have been more than a dozen studies which have verified the Mann Graph. Refined it a great deal, and none of them show the worldwide effects of the MWP as warmer than today.*

His lie was eliminating it from his hockey stick.
Why do you suppose he did that?

Did his fraud help him win a Nobel Prize?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2016)

bear513 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


*Well now, that does not surprise me that you quote second grade level science. That is all you know.

Every Scientific Society has put out policy statements on global warming. And in those statements, were you willing to read them, you will find the reasons that they accept the evidence for global warming. Geological Society of America's statement on global warming.*

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos10_climate.pdf

Climate Change Position Statement.    

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse‐gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty‐first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources. Purpose.    This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> His lie was eliminating it from his hockey stick.
> Why do you suppose he did that?



He didn't. You're just making shit up again.



> Did his fraud help him win a Nobel Prize?



Non-Stalinists don't fabricate stories in an attempt to imprison scientists for doing science. You do. Hence, you are a Stalinist.

You're in good company, of course. Every denier here is such a Stalinist. Despite me asking many times, not a single one of them had ever condemned the Virginia AG for his attempted political prosecution of Dr. Mann. All the deniers here are Stalinists. It's their least charming trait, their open embrace of authoritarian thug tactics.

If any denier wishes to protest that they're not a Stalinist, simply break with your tribe and condemn that Virginia AG. If you won't, then keep flying your Stalinist freak flag proudly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > His lie was eliminating it from his hockey stick.
> ...



*He didn't.*

He didn't eliminate the MWP? Are you sure?

At least he has that Nobel Prize, eh?

I lost track, what year did he win?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 13, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Every denier here is such a Stalinist




The President of the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY is obviously having another meltdown..

Meanwhile, 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica continues to grow, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperatures according to ice cores, satellites, and weather balloons, and the "US Media" continues to censor the first question of Earth climate change

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


----------



## mamooth (Jul 13, 2016)

Here's another denier hero, Lord Monckton, proudly flying his Stalinist freak flag.

It’s time to prosecute the climate fraudsters

Needless to say, every denier loves the guy.

In contrast, we here on the rational side don't try to jail people for disagreeing. If any single person on our "side" advocates such a dumb thing, we rip 'em a new one. The two sides are not alike. Deniers are Stalinists, while we rational people aren't.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 13, 2016)

Fraud is fraud, treason is treason.  Global Warming is treasonous fraud.

Clearly, the "warmers" know it is a fraud, and that it is a treasonous fraud, which is why they freak out when the subject comes up...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm. Who to trust ...
> ...



*Lying to the public about life and death issues for your own personal profit is not legally protected 'free speech', no matter what lies your corporate puppet-masters tell you*

link....


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 13, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Hmm. Who to trust ...
> 
> The actual facts, and all the world's scientists
> 
> ...


How's this for a "new" tactic. What is the end game for you warmers? What will, ultimately make you happy? I want specifics. I want GHG numbers. I want details. What will make you happy? What is your goal, in detail? Define what you want and we can go from there.


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2016)

What we want?  I want to find Aladdin's Lamp.

We'd like all the governments of the world to deal with this problem as it actually requires.

Why do you ask?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 13, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm. Who to trust ...
> ...



They want us to die plain and simple..

They want the text books that we learned in the 2nd grade that the climate changes goes with us..

The only way to beat the AGW cult is out live them


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> What we want?  I want to find Aladdin's Lamp.
> 
> We'd like all the governments of the world to deal with this problem as it actually requires.
> 
> Why do you ask?


Dude, the question is what do you want them to do?  Stop giving political speeches with no content explain your plans.


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2016)

If you think AR5 has no content, the claim you've made in the past to have read the whole thing falls on its face.

Are you ALL so dishonest?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> If you think AR5 has no content, the claim you've made in the past to have read the whole thing falls on its face.
> 
> Are you ALL so dishonest?


what content are you referring to? Or are you going to give us another political speech brought to us by the liberal democratic party?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> How's this for a "new" tactic. What is the end game for you warmers? What will, ultimately make you happy? I want specifics. I want GHG numbers. I want details. What will make you happy? What is your goal, in detail? Define what you want and we can go from there.



Being you've already tried that tactic on this thread, it's clearly not a new tactic. I answered you, and you declared you weren't talking to me because I was so meeeeeeeeaaaaaaan. However, as you're responding to my posts now, you must have overcome your your outrage, so I'll repost what you avoided before.

If mankind hadn't altered it, CO2 would be around 280 ppm.

It's currently at 400 ppm and rising.

Climate has currently warmed by about 1.0C since the start of the industrial age.

If we stabilize at 450 ppm, we _might_ be able to hold it at a final 2.0C temperature rise.

2.0C is not good, but it's not catastrophic. Economic costs start going up exponentially above 2.0C, so it's not something we want to blow through.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2016)

mamooth said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > How's this for a "new" tactic. What is the end game for you warmers? What will, ultimately make you happy? I want specifics. I want GHG numbers. I want details. What will make you happy? What is your goal, in detail? Define what you want and we can go from there.
> ...


again, what is your solution to do this?  That is the question.  What exactly are you looking for? How will you stabilize the CO2?  What is that plan?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 14, 2016)

mamooth said:


> If mankind hadn't altered it, CO2 would be around 280 ppm.
> 
> It's currently at 400 ppm and rising.
> 
> *Surface of growing urban area*s has currently warmed by about 1.0C since the start of the industrial age.




There, fixed.  The highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data shows no warming in the atmosphere.  We could up Co2 to 8000 ppm and it still wouldn't warm anything. 

Change the Sun to all IR and, yeah, that'd work.... but the Sun produces the spectrum, and IR is a tiny weak part of the spectrum.


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> What we want?  I want to find Aladdin's Lamp.
> 
> We'd like all the governments of the world to deal with this problem as it actually requires.
> 
> Why do you ask?


So, are you saying that nothing short of a fantasy will satisfy you, or would you care to actually answer the questions?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 14, 2016)

There is only one "solution" to the "problem" of "climate change" - prosecution of the fudgebaking taxpayer funded liars.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> There is only one "solution" to the "problem" of "climate change" - prosecution of the fudgebaking taxpayer funded liars.


^^^^ding, ding, ding, ding^^^^^^^^


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



But its ok for alarmists to deprive people of food and fuels to keep warm to save the planet... Killing is ok if your an alarmist..


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> What we want?  I want to find Aladdin's Lamp.
> 
> We'd like all the governments of the world to deal with this problem as it actually requires.
> 
> Why do you ask?





oldsoul said:


> So, are you saying that nothing short of a fantasy will satisfy you, or would you care to actually answer the questions?



I did answer the question.  Would you care to answer mine?


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What we want?  I want to find Aladdin's Lamp.
> ...


"We'd like all the governments of the world to deal with this problem as it actually requires." How does this answer the question of what you want in specific terms?

Fine, I'll answer your question. It's simple really. I want to know what your goals are. I want to know where you, not someone else, you, see things going that would satisfy you. I want a DETAILED explanation of what you want. Why is that not self-evident from the way I phrased my question? It really should be a pretty easy question to answer, complex maybe, but easy to give. Unless, of course, one is chasing a boogie man that can never be caught, or one is using "Global Warming" as a tool to further the real cause they fight for.
So, what'll it be? Answer the question or expose yourself as the hack that you likely are.


----------



## Crick (Jul 15, 2016)

What I want has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of AGW.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> What I want has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of AGW.


Really? Why do you bitch about fossil fuels then?


----------



## Crick (Jul 16, 2016)

What reasons have I given you over and over and over again to do so?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> What reasons have I given you over and over and over again to do so?


Gee Sherlock, it's not like you're my life so sorry. You present so much blah it it's hard to know.


----------



## Crick (Jul 16, 2016)

Buh-bye


----------



## jc456 (Jul 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Buh-bye


Yep, I see u'r doing what a loser does


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 22, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> 
> Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.
> 
> ...



Another bit of extremely fraudulent propaganda from the usual fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. Posted, of course, by the braindead denier cult troll WitheredMan.

In the real world.....

*‘Anatomy of a Smear’ or ‘How the Right Wing Denial Machine Distorts The Climate Change Discourse’*
The Huffington Post
Dr. Michael Mann - _Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center_
07/15/2016
(excerpts)
*Several weeks ago, on June 17, I provided testimony about the threat of human-caused climate change to the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee in Phoenix Arizona. Fittingly, my testimony was just one day before record heatstruck Phoenix. At the beginning of my testimony, I made the point, using slightly lofty language appropriate for the occasion, that the impacts of climate change are now so profound that we no longer need sophisticated signal-detection machinery to see them:
*
*I am a climate scientist, and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change. What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle. Regardless of how you measure the impacts of climate change — whether it be food, water, health, national security, our economy — climate change is already taking a great toll. And we see that tool in the damage done by more extreme floods, like the floods we’ve seen over the past year in Texas and in South Carolina. We see it in the devastating combination of sea level rise and more destructive hurricanes which has led to calamities like “Superstorm” Sandy and what is now the perennial flooding of Miami beach. We see it in the unprecedented drought, like that which continues to afflict California, a doubling in the area of wildfire, fire burning in the western U.S., and indeed, in the record heat we may see this weekend in phoenix. The signal of climate change is no longer subtle. It is obvious.*​*
My point—that we don’t need sophisticated techniques to identify the human fingerprint present in e.g. the doubling of extreme heat or the tripling (in fact) of western wildfire that we have seen in the U.S. in recent decades, ought to be clear to any honest observer. It would be absurd to conclude that I was arguing that climate models and climate data are no longer necessary in climate science, especially given that they continue to form the bread and butter of my own scientific research (I’ve published over a dozen scientific articles using climate models and climate data during the past year alone). So you can imagine my shock—yes, shock—that climate change deniers and conservative media outlets that serve as mouthpieces for them, would seek to convince their readers of just that. It is an instructive ontological exercise to follow this particular affair—from its inception through the latest developments, sort of like observing a deviant version of the game “telephone” (or “Chinese whispers” for British readers) wherein the participants are actually trying to distort the message as it is passed along from one person to the next. 

It all started on Monday June 27th with Steven J. Milloy and his outlandishly untruthful claim “Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics.” Milloy, who actually calls himself the “junk man” with no apparent sense of irony, is a denier-for-hire who happily takes money from tobacco interests, chemical interests, and of course fossil fuel interests to do their dirty work, attacking seemingly any scientist whose findings threaten their financial bottom line. Milloy frequently publishes columns in the notorious Washington Times. Which brings us to the next stage of the affair... Later that same day, the Washington Times—a paper founded by Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, ran a piece by one Valerie Richardson entitled “Michael Mann, scientist: Data ‘increasingly unnecessary’ because ‘we can see climate change’”. Somehow ‘tools’ have become ‘data’. It almost seems like they’re going out of their way to misrepresent my statements, doesn’t it? Almost as if to demonstrate that they too have absolutely no sense of irony, the Washington Times referred to me in the piece as a “Leading climate doomsayer” (the Unification Church, you see, is often considered a doomsday cult). The Washington Times also happens to be closely tied to ALEC—a Koch Brothers-funded organization that promotes climate change denialism and subverts efforts to incentivize renewable energy.

(Read much more of the truth of this matter at website)*


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2016)

Thank you RT.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> ...


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> ...


When weather = climate. 
When the doomsdayers say it does.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> ...



*Dr. Michael Mann - *_*Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center*
_
Didn't he win the Nobel Prize?
When was that again?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 23, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> 
> Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.
> 
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> Another bit of extremely fraudulent propaganda from the usual fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. Posted, of course, by the braindead denier cult troll WitheredMan.
> 
> In the real world.....
> 
> ...





Weatherman2020 said:


> When weather = climate.
> When the doomsdayers say it does.



LOLOLOLOL......WitheredMan provides another good example of the kind of insanely meaningless non-sequiturs these increasingly desperate denier cult trolls post when their deranged bullshit, usually generated by propaganda pushers for the fossil fuel industry (in this case the fraudulent OP), gets completely debunked. Notice that nowhere in this thread does anyone equate "_weather_" and "_climate_".....nor do any actual climate scientists anywhere.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 23, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> 
> Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.
> 
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> Another bit of extremely fraudulent propaganda from the usual fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. Posted, of course, by the braindead denier cult troll WitheredMan.
> 
> In the real world.....
> 
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Dr. Michael Mann - *_*Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University; Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center*
> _
> Didn't he win the Nobel Prize?
> When was that again?


No. Your point??? If any.

Of course, there are other Nobel Prize winners......

*Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Call For Action To ‘Minimize The Substantial Risks Of Climate Change’*
ClimateProgress
BY NATASHA GEILING
JUL 6, 2015
(excerpts)
*Sixty years ago, Nobel laureates gathered on a tiny island in Western Europe and warned the world of the dangerous effects of nuclear weapons. Last Friday, on the same island, 36 Nobel Prize winners took up another cause: climate change, which they said poses a “threat of comparable magnitude” to nuclear war. “If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy,” the Nobel laureates’ declaration reads. “Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.” The declaration marked the culmination of the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, a week-long gathering of 65 Nobel laureates held on Mainau Island, a small island in Lake Constance that borders Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

“Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change,” the declaration continues, highlighting the 2015 United Nation Climate Change Conference in Paris as a chance to take steps toward international climate action. “This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessment,” the declaration concludes. Thirty-five of the declaration’s signatories have been awarded a Nobel Prize in a scientific field, ranging from medicine to chemistry. The 36th signatory was Kailash Satyarthi, who was awarded the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in children’s rights.

“I see this issue as the single greatest threat to human prosperity, and I believe it is important for the best scientific evidence to be used by policy [makers] in making their decisions,” Brian Schmidt, who was awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize for physics, said in a press statement. That sentiment was echoed by George Smoot, recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize for physics, who said that “the evidence is very strong that the major portion of climate change is man made and that continuing business as usual presents great and increasing risk to humankind.”*


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 23, 2016)

Then again, since, in the past 1 million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...

we must conclude... that CO2 melted NA and froze Greenland at the same time???

LOL!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> ...



*No. Your point??? If any.
*
Michael Mann didn't win the Nobel Prize?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Then again, since, in the past 1 million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...
> 
> we must conclude... that CO2 melted NA and froze Greenland at the same time???
> 
> LOL!!!



Is Greenland close to the pole?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 23, 2016)

He won Hillary's "honesty in science" award for this quote

"This isn't about truth, it is about plausible deniability..."


and while you're at it, practice more "climate science" by

HIDING THAT DECLINE!!!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> ...



You fool I thought it was over?
Passed the point of no return

Have We Passed the Point of No Return on Climate Change?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is Greenland close to the pole?




This is what you need to know...

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

"The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles."


As Greenland moved NW due to the angle of the "coming in" fault at the bottom of the Atlantic, it was all green.  The Greenland ice age is under 1 million years old.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Is Greenland close to the pole?
> ...



Where is your proof that Greenland was green while North America, further south, was frozen?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 24, 2016)

You just copied the proof that Greenland was green.  The direction of the Greenland tectonic plate stems from the slant of the northern portion of the "coming in" fault at the bottom of the Atlantic - also explaining why Europe and Britain are warming while Greenland was cooling.

As for North America one million years ago...





Note that in this map Greenland is frozen, when, in fact, not only was it not frozen, but it was also further SE.

*
Last Glacial Maximum 18,000 years ago

World Map
*




*
*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> You just copied the proof that Greenland was green.  The direction of the Greenland tectonic plate stems from the slant of the northern portion of the "coming in" fault at the bottom of the Atlantic - also explaining why Europe and Britain are warming while Greenland was cooling.
> 
> As for North America one million years ago...
> 
> ...



Cool pics.
Are you going to post your proof that Greenland was green while North America, further south, was frozen?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> What I want has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of AGW.



Your buddy, Rolling Thunder, said Michael E. Mann didn't actually win the Nobel Prize.

Is he correct?


----------



## Crick (Jul 24, 2016)

The IPCC received a Nobel Prize and Mann - an IPCC lead author - received some sort of certificate about it.  He was criticized, as I'm sure you recall, for displaying it and stating that he was a Nobel Prize winner.  Sounds like semantics to me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> The IPCC received a Nobel Prize and Mann - an IPCC lead author - received some sort of certificate about it.  He was criticized, as I'm sure you recall, for displaying it and stating that he was a Nobel Prize winner.  Sounds like semantics to me.



Sounds like he lied.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you going to post your proof that Greenland was green while North America, further south, was




Already did....

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green


"The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles."


The thickest part of the ice, up north, is where the Greenland ice age started less than a million years ago.  The age of what is under that ice is PROOF that Greenland was not iced up 1 million years ago.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sounds like he lied.




Sounds like Hillary explaining her cattle futures...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Are you going to post your proof that Greenland was green while North America, further south, was
> ...



*The **DNA** is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest
*
Yes, Greenland was green. No mention in your link that North America was covered in ice at the same time that Greenland was green.

Were you lying when you made the claim, or just confused?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No mention in your link that North America was covered in ice at the same time that Greenland was green.




That's because the article is about Greenland.  The North American ice age glaciers were still in Indiana as late as 10k years ago...

Google

"Around 16,000 years ago *glaciers* covered *Indiana*. "


Just precisely how, where, and why the North American ice age glacier melted is not exact science.  The last eruption of Yellowstone 640k years ago clearly did some of the damage, but also likely coated the ice with dark ash.  What was left in Indiana 10k years ago was likely small, loose, and almost gone.  What was there 1-10 million years ago was much more serious ice age glacier.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No mention in your link that North America was covered in ice at the same time that Greenland was green.
> ...


*
That's because the article is about Greenland.*

You mean the article that doesn't prove your claim?
_
"Around 16,000 years ago _*glaciers*_ covered _*Indiana*_. "_

And Greenland was ice free at that time? Prove it.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 25, 2016)

Greenland was not ice free 16k years ago.  The southern tip of Greenland was ice free until the 15th century when the Vikings had to flee - couldn't grow crops anymore.  Greenland was big talking point of the Global Cooling scam of the 1970s.

North American ice age lasted about 50 million years, and just ended.

These "interglacial periods" are all wrong.  The carbon dating from Greenland proves it.  Many morons look at the southern tip of South America, notice it was recently covered with glaciers, and come to the bogus conclusion that Antarctic ice was much larger within the past 50 million years.  What really happened was that South America and Antarctica were attached when they broke off from Africa 125 million years ago.  That's what glaciated the southern tip of South America.  South America is also not moving just west, it is swinging like a golf club, with the southern part now moving NW.  When that southern tip of South America started swinging back up (north), that was the "tug" that broke it off from Antarctica.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Greenland was not ice free 16k years ago.  The southern tip of Greenland was ice free until the 15th century when the Vikings had to flee - couldn't grow crops anymore.  Greenland was big talking point of the Global Cooling scam of the 1970s.
> 
> North American ice age lasted about 50 million years, and just ended.
> 
> These "interglacial periods" are all wrong.  The carbon dating from Greenland proves it.  Many morons look at the southern tip of South America, notice it was recently covered with glaciers, and come to the bogus conclusion that Antarctic ice was much larger within the past 50 million years.  What really happened was that South America and Antarctica were attached when they broke off from Africa 125 million years ago.  That's what glaciated the southern tip of South America.  South America is also not moving just west, it is swinging like a golf club, with the southern part now moving NW.  When that southern tip of South America started swinging back up (north), that was the "tug" that broke it off from Antarctica.



*Greenland was not ice free 16k years ago.
*
They both had ice at the same time.
Still not helping your original claim.
Try again?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 25, 2016)

Greenland was ice free one million years ago.  NA was covered with glacier one million years ago.

Now, Greenland is covered with ice, and NA has thawed considerably.  Greenland's ice age glacier pushes more than 100 miles south of the Arctic Circle.  NA has trees 500 miles north of the Arctic Circle.  One million years ago, that was in complete reverse, as Indiana was still hundreds of miles south of the Arctic Circle when it was covered by mile high glaciers.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 25, 2016)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Greenland was ice free one million years ago.  NA was covered with glacier one million years ago.
> 
> Now, Greenland is covered with ice, and NA has thawed considerably.  Greenland's ice age glacier pushes more than 100 miles south of the Arctic Circle.  NA has trees 500 miles north of the Arctic Circle.  One million years ago, that was in complete reverse, as Indiana was still hundreds of miles south of the Arctic Circle when it was covered by mile high glaciers.


*
Greenland was ice free one million years ago. NA was covered with glacier one million years ago.*

You just can't prove it.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 26, 2016)

LOL!!!

Greenland is proven by two things - one, the carbon dating of objects beneath the thickest part of the ice, and two, the fact that Greenland has been moving NW for the past 100 million years...

NA covered with glacier ice is well documented by links provided.  

Over the past million years, Greenland froze while NA thawed.

And Antarctica did not have more ice 40 million years ago vs. today - rather, the southern tip of South America used to have ice when it was attached to AA, but broke off tens of millions of years ago.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> Greenland is proven by two things - one, the carbon dating of objects beneath the thickest part of the ice, and two, the fact that Greenland has been moving NW for the past 100 million years...
> 
> ...



Just admit you lied when you said Greenland thawed while NA froze.
Then I can stop pointing out your posts don't help prove your lie.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Just admit you lied when you said Greenland thawed while NA froze.



LMAO!!!

You haven't laid a glove on anything I've posted.



Though not 100% correct, the above link is worth watching...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Just admit you lied when you said Greenland thawed while NA froze.
> ...



I asked you to prove your claim that Greenland thawed while NA froze.
How many posts have you gone without providing your proof? Derp!


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 26, 2016)

mamooth said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > How arrogant of someone to state that mankind can have a significant long term effect on global climate. Are they really saying that we are more powerful than "Mother Earth"?
> ...



Paraphrase: You big dummy, man is the ultimate power of the UNIVERSE!!!!


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 26, 2016)

I provide proof.

You post that isn't proof.

cycle repeat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> I provide proof.
> 
> You post that isn't proof.
> 
> cycle repeat.



Your claim that Greenland thawed and NA froze 1 million years ago isn't useful proof.
Anything with a little more precision?
So I can stop pointing and laughing at your silly claim?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 26, 2016)

You apparently are rejecting the carbon dating of that which was under more than a mile of ice on Greenland as evidence, and the well documented "North American Ice Age."

But you don't offer anything to refute, because it would be laughable...


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> You apparently are rejecting the carbon dating of that which was under more than a mile of ice on Greenland as evidence, and the well documented "North American Ice Age."
> 
> But you don't offer anything to refute, because it would be laughable...


Carbon dating is a joke..and you haven't provided it anyway.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 26, 2016)

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

"The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles."


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 26, 2016)

"the last Ice Age" is when NA was frozen past Indiana...

Dummies thought that meant everything was frozen, including ocean and Greenland.  In fact, just NA was frozen, while Greenland was entirely green right next to NA...

ICE AGES are CONTINENT SPECIFIC.


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green
> 
> "The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
> 
> The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles."



For the record, I am NOT disagreeing with you. For the sake of substantive argument, please divulge your source.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 26, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green
> ...


just wondering who took the photos back 450,000 years ago.  Seems like what you're asking.


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...


Nope, not what I'm asking, but nice try. I am looking for the source of the posted quote, or did I miss it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> You apparently are rejecting the carbon dating of that which was under more than a mile of ice on Greenland as evidence, and the well documented "North American Ice Age."
> 
> But you don't offer anything to refute, because it would be laughable...



I'm pointing out your failure to provide proof of your silly claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> "the last Ice Age" is when NA was frozen past Indiana...
> 
> Dummies thought that meant everything was frozen, including ocean and Greenland.  In fact, just NA was frozen, while Greenland was entirely green right next to NA...
> 
> ICE AGES are CONTINENT SPECIFIC.



Dummies thought that meant everything was frozen, including ocean and Greenland. In fact, just NA was frozen, while Greenland was entirely green right next to NA...

At what period in time did this green Greenland occur next to a frozen NA?
Hint: Saying a million years ago, especially with no link, is not proof of your claim.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 26, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...


well he posted links to both when Greenland was green and when North America came out.  The two timelines don't meet.  Now if you challenge the link, then you must want evidence like photos.  I don't think kodak was around in either time.  So, you'd be SOL


----------



## jc456 (Jul 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > "the last Ice Age" is when NA was frozen past Indiana...
> ...


well if you took both timelines he provided, you'd see that the Greenland link stated it was green 450,000 to 800,000 years ago, and in the North America link it stated that NA was ice free 10,000 years ago.  Green vs ice


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> At what period in time did this green Greenland occur next to a frozen NA?
> Hint: Saying a million years ago, especially with no link, is not proof of your claim.




LOL!!!

Yes, proven is the fact that Greenland's ice age began no more than 800k years ago.  Then the question becomes the timeline of the NA ice age.

Indiana Geological Survey - Ice Age in Indiana

"Geologists also refer to this time as the Pleistocene, a formal period of geologic time that began 2 million years ago and technically ended 10,000 years ago. "








The above map shows what every other map of the North American ice age shows, glaciers all over Canada down to Indiana etc.  What is WRONG with this is, of course, the fact that GREENLAND was NOT FROZEN during that time, especially since the map fails to recognize tectonic movement...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*well he posted links to both when Greenland was green and when North America came out.*

No. He did not post a link that said
"this many years ago, Greenland was green and at the same time NA was in an ice age".

Maybe you can help him out?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > At what period in time did this green Greenland occur next to a frozen NA?
> ...



We're still in an Ice Age, so you need to be more specific with the time periods .

*What is WRONG with this is, of course, the fact that GREENLAND was NOT FROZEN during that time*

I see, not only do you not have a link proving your claim, the links you provide are wrong, because they disprove your claim. DERP!


----------



## mamooth (Jul 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> especially since the map fails to recognize tectonic movement...



As has been pointed out to you before, there is no tectonic movement between Greenland and North America. Greenland is part of the North American plate, and it moves along with North America.

And the rate ... 1.2 cm/year, towards the WSW. Over a million years, that's 100 miles, not enough to shift climate.

Your theory, like every theory you state, is totally 'effin retarded.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...


It's  there in his two posts you don't like it you can get fkd


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Look, one moron can't help the other, what a surprise.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Datas out no need to help. Too bad forayou


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Lots of posts, zero proof.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Proof of what? You think he'll have photos? So you think Kodak was around 450,000 years ago wow talk about Derp, Derp


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Proof of anyone showing that Greenland was green at the same time that North America was frozen.
At the same time.
Not, Greenland was green 800,000 years ago and North America had an Ice Age 20,000 years ago.
Because those times are not the same.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Derp!!!
Timelines intersect 
Where would that come from without pictures? Ice cores is all we got. You have other records? Derp


----------



## SSDD (Jul 27, 2016)

I don't know that I have ever seen a more lazy bunch of people..."show your source"..."show your source"..."give us a link"...."give us a link"...what the hell is wrong with you people?  Are you afraid that if you take 15 seconds to look that you will find out that he is right?...Well guess what...he is...

A quick google of what he is saying verifies it satisfactorily....

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green



			
				livescience said:
			
		

> sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
> 
> From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.



BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past

Ice-covered Greenland was a conifer forest half-a-million years ago

Oldest Known DNA Found in Greenland Ice Core

DNA Discovery Shows Greenland's Warm Past, Altering Thoughts on Climate Change

DNA discovery reveals Greenland's warm past

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Greenland's lush past.pdf

The above links represent about 5 minutes of looking...get off your dead asses and do something for yourselves once in a while...you sound like a bunch of magpies..."give us a link"..."give us a link"...

So now if a green greenland 450 to 800 thousand years ago presents a problem with what you believe you know...then that's just too f'ing bad, isn't it?....it is tough to argue with the discovery of DNA under 2 KM of ice...  One of the articles even states that the data is contrary to what we thought we knew...but then finding out that what we thought we knew wasn't true at all isn't unusual is it?...isn't that what science is all about?....

Only in climate science does the discovery that what we thought we knew isn't true spark such universal outrage and denial...grow up you bunch of pussies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



You have ice core proof that North America was in an Ice Age at the same time that Greenland was green?
That is excellent news!!! Could you please post it so I can stop pointing out LaDerpster's failure?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I don't know that I have ever seen a more lazy bunch of people..."show your source"..."show your source"..."give us a link"...."give us a link"...what the hell is wrong with you people?  Are you afraid that if you take 15 seconds to look that you will find out that he is right?...Well guess what...he is...
> 
> A quick google of what he is saying verifies it satisfactorily....
> 
> ...



Hey, fuckstain, no one here denies that Greenland was green in the past.
I saw a claim that Greenland was green while North America was frozen.

Still waiting for proof. Maybe you can ask your smart photons for a link?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 27, 2016)

toddster the idiot said:
			
		

> Hey, fuckstain, no one here denies that Greenland was green in the past.
> I saw a claim that Greenland was green while North America was frozen.



Again...not to f'ing difficult to look up if you could only pull your head out of your ass by a fraction of an inch...in fact he already gave you a link...which you clearly didn't read, but further information isn't that hard to come by....all you need do is look up the pleistocene period...which you clearly aren't smart enough to do so let me do it for you....

Pleistocene Epoch: Facts About the Last Ice Age

Pleistocene - New World Encyclopedia

ATMO336 - Spring 2012

There seems to be pretty good agreement that ice covered most of canada and the northern US at least a mile thick from  around 2.8 million years ago till about 14,000 years ago...that would fall within the time frame that the greenland record says that there were forests growing....just chalk the time line conflict up to one more thing that you know that happens not to be true...

It seems pretty clear that most of canada and much of the northern US were covered with ice during the time period that the research seems to show that Greenland was covered with forest....

This is just one more thing which is typical of you and just one more reason I keep you on ignore...you are like a child...never have anything beyond one liners to say because to say more would expose the depth of your ignorance.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it was already posted, you should have read the links provided.  I don't do probono work.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> this many years ago, Greenland was green and at the same time NA was in an ice age




That is simply my claim and backed up by the facts.  Ice ages take time.  The top of Northern Canada was where Greenland is about 30-40 million years ago.  At that point in time, NA had lots of ice and Greenland had none save mountain tops.  

But I do have something new for you - DATA, not PARROTING...

The last Yellowstone eruption was

yellowstone eruption - Google Search

 "640,000 years ago"

ash map







Notice the ash doesn't cover INDIANA...

WHY??

Was there ICE on INDIANA 640k years ago, near the start of the Greenland ice age???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> toddster the idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*
There seems to be pretty good agreement that ice covered most of canada and the northern US at least a mile thick from around 2.8 million years ago till about 14,000 years ago..*

You think NA was covered by glaciers, continuously, for nearly the last 3 million years? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > this many years ago, Greenland was green and at the same time NA was in an ice age
> ...



*That is simply my claim and backed up by the facts.*

You're half right.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You think NA was covered by glaciers, continuously, for nearly the last 3 million years? LOL!




The warmers try very hard to suggest that ice ages come and go fast, like "Day after Tomorrow" fast.  Then there are things like ice cores, which suggest just the opposite.

Greenland has been moving NW for the past 100 million years.  It gets colder/receives less sunlight each year because of that.  That ice age on Greenland is brand spanking new.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > this many years ago, Greenland was green and at the same time NA was in an ice age
> ...


640k years ago?  Try just 12,000 years ago.  Great Lakes were being born then.  Leftist doomsdayers were running around back then screaming look at those lakes, the end is near.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Try, please try... to understand that Canada was covered under ice for 30-50 million years.

640k is the last Yellowstone eruption, which left a lot of ash on the ground... but some ash landed on ice, so it got washed away... and THAT is the point, that those Indiana glaciers are there 16k years ago, 640k years ago, and longer...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're half right.



You won't answer the question...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You think NA was covered by glaciers, continuously, for nearly the last 3 million years? LOL!




Ice ages start when the tectonic plate moves land within 600 or so miles of an Earth pole.  As winters get longer and colder, summers get shorter.  At some point, the summer fails to melt the snow accumulation, and then next year's snow STACKS ON TOP OF LAST YEAR's.  That is the start of an ice age.  Let that stacking continue for 800k years, you get 700k cubic miles of ice on Greenland.  Keep it going for 50 million years on a larger land mass and you get 8 million cubic miles of ice on Antarctica.  They are the SAME THING.  They do THE SAME THING.  One is just younger...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You think NA was covered by glaciers, continuously, for nearly the last 3 million years? LOL!
> ...



Post your proof that North America was covered with ice while Greenland was ice free.
Pretty please.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

OVer and over and over its been done here, and you won't accept it.

Reading all the falsehood filled crap the warmers have now posted about ice ages... this issue needs its own topic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> OVer and over and over its been done here, and you won't accept it.
> 
> Reading all the falsehood filled crap the warmers have now posted about ice ages... this issue needs its own topic.



No, you have never posted anything to prove your claim. You have claimed things like this.....

*The top of Northern Canada was where Greenland is about 30-40 million years ago. At that point in time, NA had lots of ice and Greenland had none save mountain tops.* 

Try again?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > OVer and over and over its been done here, and you won't accept it.
> ...


data and timelines posted.  The material is available, enjoy the read.  you get no more.   I always knew you couldn't figure out things.  more evidence today, you can't marry up two time lines.  funny stuff.  BTW, ever hear of paper and pencil?  how about notepad or word?  you can make lines there as well.  incompetent must be your middle name.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Liar.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


how?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

The patriot of Zionism is trying to cling to the "warmer" idea that ice ages come and go quickly, that Greenland's ice sheet rises and shrinks whenever one species is farting too much...

I say it has to do with how close the land is to the nearest Earth pole... and he can't even begin to refute that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The patriot of Zionism is trying to cling to the "warmer" idea that ice ages come and go quickly, that Greenland's ice sheet rises and shrinks whenever one species is farting too much...
> 
> I say it has to do with how close the land is to the nearest Earth pole... and he can't even begin to refute that.



Liar.
Keep trying though.
Your failure is amusing.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > The patriot of Zionism is trying to cling to the "warmer" idea that ice ages come and go quickly, that Greenland's ice sheet rises and shrinks whenever one species is farting too much...
> ...


failed?  how?


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I don't know that I have ever seen a more lazy bunch of people..."show your source"..."show your source"..."give us a link"...."give us a link"...what the hell is wrong with you people?  Are you afraid that if you take 15 seconds to look that you will find out that he is right?...Well guess what...he is...
> 
> A quick google of what he is saying verifies it satisfactorily....
> 
> ...


Really? Asking for the source material of someone's claim is now being lazy? Are you insane or just stupid? Maybe you just don't understand the process of debate. When someone makes a claim, and quotes (or references a source) I would like to know the source so that I can look at the same information they did. If that makes me lazy then I am as lazy as heck.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

I cannot be a "liar" until you actually attempt a scientific refutation other than name calling...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know that I have ever seen a more lazy bunch of people..."show your source"..."show your source"..."give us a link"...."give us a link"...what the hell is wrong with you people?  Are you afraid that if you take 15 seconds to look that you will find out that he is right?...Well guess what...he is...
> ...


it is when the source material was indeed provided and you don't read it.  yep that would be you be lazy.


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


So, there is a link and I missed it. Thank you for clearing that up. Didn't really need the rest of the crap from you though. Seems you are angry and needing someone to take it out on, I am not going to be that someone.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...


LOL yep you're lazy.  the links were all there, you should actually read all of the posts before looking like an ass.


----------



## oldsoul (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


No, what happened was I missed it. I am human after all and make mistakes. When I do, I own them and take responsibility for them. You seem to be quite invested in name-calling, something for which I have no time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

oldsoul said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...



You didn't miss it.
He provided no link that backed up his claim.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Yes, one cannot possibly have an original thought - only parroting counts...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


correct, he provided two links, one for Greenland and one for North America.  Now kids, you have to do a little work and combine the two data points and intersect the timelines.  and baddaboom will you look at that.

at 450,000 years Greenland was green and 450,000 years ago North America was still ice to Indiana. would you look at that.  match!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...



No, none of the links he provided had enough detail to back up his claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Yes, one cannot possibly have an original thought - only parroting counts...



Your original thoughts were funny, and not backed up by any proof.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yes they did I pointed to it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Liar.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


li·ar
[ˈlī(ə)r]
deceiver · fibber · perjurer · false witness · fabricator ·
equivocator · fabulist · storyteller
*ORIGIN*
Old English lēogere (see lie2, -ar4).
*RELATED FORMS*
liar (noun)
liar*s* (plural noun)

is that the definition you're looking for?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Yes, that describes you. Thanks!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > oldsoul said:
> ...


_
The __DNA__ is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles._

Sometime. Not the entire time. DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


what describes me? you asked for Liar.  That was the definition I gave it clearly points out how it describes you factually.  Keep trying though, your reading skills just might get better.  I'm not betting on that, but blind squirrels like you can find acorns they say.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


so you think it was a day, a week, a year?  Or since they used a 350,000 year window that maybe it was a longer time frame.  And, during that time, did North America have ice?  hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sometime. Not the entire time. DERP!




and the fact that Greenland has been moving NW for the past 100 million years... well, that's just another "data" to be ignored???

What caused Greenland's recent ice age?  What made it get COLDER??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*so you think it was a day, a week, a year?*

I don't have any opinion on the length.
Just pointing out the failure to back up his claim.

*And, during that time, did North America have ice?* 

Did it? Post your evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


_*Did it? Post your evidence*_

already posted by LaDexter.  You have it, read it, again, I don't do probono work.

Well even if it was a frikn day, it was green, right?  How is it he lied? he never gave a timeline on how long.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sometime. Not the entire time. DERP!
> ...



*and the fact that Greenland has been moving NW for the past 100 million years*

How far did it move?
Has your claim morphed into, "Greenland was warmer when it was further south than North America"?
Because that would be funny.

*What caused Greenland's recent ice age?*

I'm more interested in "what caused one in North America during the same period that Greenland was warm"?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

rinse!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*already posted*

Yes, I showed you how his post didn't prove his claim.
Do you need another remedial reading course?

*Well even if it was a frikn day, it was green, right?* 

Show me on that green day that NA was covered in ice and you win.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

rinse


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> rinse!



Your kind of stupid won't rinse out.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Lakhota said:


> Why does Trump hate America?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Show me on that green day that NA was covered in ice and you win.




Try this one... if the glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes were

"paul ryan" - Google Search

"The *glacier*, up to 2 miles thick, was so heavy and powerful it gouged out the earth's surface to create the*lake* basins."


So, Todd, if the glaciers were more than a mile thick, how many ANNUAL ICE CORES were present in them???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Why does Trump hate America?
> ...



Unless you're going to show Greenland ice free while the 2 miles of ice were on top of the Great Lakes area, you're drifting from the topic.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

LMFAO!!!!

What you are arguing, hilariously, is that those mile plus high ice age glaciers which dug out the Great Lakes were somehow seriously young...

Sorry, you fail.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> LMFAO!!!!
> 
> What you are arguing, hilariously, is that those mile plus high ice age glaciers which dug out the Great Lakes were somehow seriously young...
> 
> Sorry, you fail.



I'm not arguing anything about the age or youth of those glaciers.

Simply pointing out your utter failure at proving your claim.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

So, you cannot state the obvious, that ice age glaciers more than a mile high are more than several hundred thousand years old??

How old is the Antarctic ice age, a few months???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> So, you cannot state the obvious, that ice age glaciers more than a mile high are more than several hundred thousand years old??
> 
> How old is the Antarctic ice age, a few months???



*So, you cannot state the obvious, that ice age glaciers more than a mile high are more than several hundred thousand years old??
*
They could very well be that old.
Now if you showed how old they were while also showing they formed while Greenland was warm, you'd have a point.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Are you into like multiple time=space parallel universes??

Time for Greenland was time for NA.  Those mile high glaciers were in Indiana 16k years ago.  At that time, the Greenland ice age had yet to freeze the southern tip, because the Vikings were farming there 15k years later... but it is frozen now.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 27, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> 
> Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.
> 
> ...


Actually you can, the Weather Channel has devoted time to show the effects of global warming......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Are you into like multiple time=space parallel universes??
> 
> Time for Greenland was time for NA.  Those mile high glaciers were in Indiana 16k years ago.  At that time, the Greenland ice age had yet to freeze the southern tip, because the Vikings were farming there 15k years later... but it is frozen now.



* Those mile high glaciers were in Indiana 16k years ago.*

Was Greenland ice free 16k years ago?

*At that time, the Greenland ice age had yet to freeze the southern tip, because the Vikings were farming there 15k years later...
*
1000 years ago there was no ice sheet over NA. How does a warm tip of Greenland prove your previous claims?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > rinse!
> ...


I know you're still here.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 1000 years ago there was no ice sheet over NA.



That's a dodge.

How old are mile high glaciers??


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How does a warm tip of Greenland prove your previous claims?




It proves that the Greenland ice age started at the top (north) and moved south...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > 1000 years ago there was no ice sheet over NA.
> ...



Show me how old they are. And that Greenland was warm while they formed.
That's how you win.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How does a warm tip of Greenland prove your previous claims?
> ...



And that doesn't prove your claim.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> ...


sure they do.  unproven.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


You've never watched the Weather Channel, where have you been?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


he already did.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 27, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


I've never seen climate change.  I've seen records broken and i've not seen records broken.  Yesterday in Chitown the record was 1955 at 99 degrees, yesterday was 88.  Comfortable as well.  you and yours will post up hottest month evah shortly.  I merely laugh at the insanity that is your shit.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 27, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> ...


BFD. History Channel is nonstop shows about ghosts and UFOs. The Weather Channel is owned by left wing moonbats now.  The man who started the Weather Channel says Manmade global warming is BS.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> The sheer ignorance of all the folks who seem incapable of  understanding plain English...
> 
> Pray tell, where did Mann say that the evidence already collected - the work he has spent his life doing - was unneeded or irrelevant? His comment refers to FURTHER work.  This is simply another version of 'the science is settled'.  And it is.  Whine and squeal all you want, you lost this one a good while back and you're chances of recovering it range from nada to zip.


Whatever. Since the "science is settled" shouldn't we stop being defrauded by the Global Warming Doomsday Cult?


----------



## Crick (Jul 30, 2016)

If you're suggesting that there is less need to conduct research to determine whether or not the world is getting warmer, I would agree.  Research to study that quantitatively still have value as are studies into the effects of that warming.  If you're suggesting that there is less need to conduct research to determine whether or not human GHG emissions and deforestation; and the increased CO2 levels we've produced in the atmosphere and the oceans, is the primary cause of that warming and of ocean acidification, I again would agree.  Research into rates, causes, sources, mitigation measures and the like are, of course, still needed.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

CO2 doesn't warm anything.

So sayeth the ice cores - where we went to COURT and your side LOST and was TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL

So sayeth the highly correlated raw data of satellites and balloons, recording precisely NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE where the CO2 has been rising.

Nothing.

There is no need to fund any research into CO2 because CO2 does NOTHING to Earth temperature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> CO2 doesn't warm anything.
> 
> So sayeth the ice cores - where we went to COURT and your side LOST and was TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL
> 
> ...



You ever find your proof that North America had an Ice Age at the same time that Greenland was green?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

How old were the 2 mile high glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes?

Antarctica took tens of millions of years to get them that high....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> How old were the 2 mile high glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes?
> 
> Antarctica took tens of millions of years to get them that high....



*How old were the 2 mile high glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes?*

How old? And at what point in their existence was Greenland green?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Time line

approximately 50 million years ago - top of Northern Canada starts North American Ice age
approximately 1 million years ago - Greenland completely green, but not for long
 - 2 mile high glaciers digging out Great Lakes - Canada buried under similar sized glaciers
approximately 16k years ago - more than 1 mile high glaciers still moving around in Indiana
 - Greenland frozen up north to the mountain range just north of the southern tip, which is not frozen
1400 AD - Greenland's ice age engulfs entire island, driving Vikings off land
 - North American ice age in full retreat and out of United States
2016 - idiot claims 2 mile high glaciers are not very old


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2016)

The Ice Ages

General Overview of the Ice Ages

The Page Museum at the La Brea Tar Pits)
Geologically speaking, we live in a time period of intense climatic change. Since the last 1 million years, our species and our human forebears experienced a dozen or so major glaciations of the northern hemisphere, with the greatest ever occurring around 650,000 years ago. During this period of extreme ice buildup, the ice advanced deep into the Midwest, from its center around Hudson Bay in Canada, and deep into Germany, from its center on the Scandinavian Shield. So much ice collected in these two major regions and several lesser ones that the sea level dropped by some 400 feet and the overall global temperature was lowered by around 5°C (about 9°F). Mammoth, mastodon, wooly rhinoceros, giant bison, camels, horses, and many large predators (cats, wolves, bears) roamed the grasslands well south of the rim of the miles-high ice, both in North America and in Europe. Small bands of humans made a living by hunting and gathering in Africa, and perhaps elsewhere. The glaciation that occurred 650,000 years ago lasted some 50,000 years. It had a profound effect on the landscape, carving great glacial valleys and fjords and lakes, and making moraines and glacial outwash plains around the perimeter of its extent. The greatly lowered sea level allowed rivers to cut deeply into the shelves of the continents and into the edges of the shelves, where the sea floor drops off into the deep ocean. Here canyons could form which would later serve to funnel sediments from the shelf into the deep sea.

After this great glaciation, a succession of smaller glaciations has followed, each separated by about 100,000 years from its predecessor, according to changes in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit (a fact first discovered by the astronomer Johannes Kepler, 1571-1630). These periods of time when large areas of the Earth are covered by ice sheets are called �ice ages.� The last of the ice ages in human experience (often referred to as the Ice Age) reached its maximum roughly 20,000 years ago, and then gave way to warming. Sea level rose in two major steps, one centered near 14,000 years and the other near 11,500 years. However, between these two periods of rapid melting there was a pause in melting and sea level rise, known as the "Younger Dryas" period. During the Younger Dryas the climate system went back into almost fully glacial conditions, after having offered balmy conditions for more than 1000 years. The reasons for these large swings in climate change are not yet well understood. 

isotopes in a standard, where d18O = [sample ratio]/[standard ratio]-1). Note how during low sealevel (when glaciers are expanding) the ocean becomes enriched in 18O, leading to a positive isotopic value (+1‰), while the glacier becomes �depleted� in 18O, giving it a negative isotopic value (-30‰). (See the glossary for an expanded overview of the �δ� notation under �Oxygen Isotopes.�)
Climate Change and Oxygen Isotopes
The details of such climate changes were first seen in deep-sea sediments containing the shells of small planktonic organisms called foraminifers. This can be done because when foraminifers are alive, they fix within themselves a ratio of two types of atoms of oxygen. The "normal" oxygen isotope, which is by far the most abundant, has eightprotons and eight neutrons in its nucleus; it is called "oxygen-16." The "heavy" oxygen isotope, called �oxygen-18,� has two more neutrons in the nucleus, but has the same number of protons and electrons. Oxygen-16 is found in higher concentrations in snow and ice, while oxygen-18 is enriched in the ocean. Therefore, whenever more water is extracted to make more ice the ocean leaves its �isotopic fingerprint� in the oxygen. This enrichment effect is, in turn, seen in the carbonate shells of the foraminifers (made of CaCO3), because the carbonate precipitates out of the seawater, and the oxygen used to build the carbonate crystals reflects the composition of the seawater. Through this method of analyzing oxygen isotopes in foraminifers, scientists have been able to determine when the Earth has produced more glaciers, and hence determined the times when ice ages have occurred.

*There has been a succession of continental glaciations during the last one million years. When North America was covered with ice, so was Greenland and much of Europe. LaDumbkopf cannot give us sites that say otherwise, because there are no such sites that are credible.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Time line
> 
> approximately 50 million years ago - top of Northern Canada starts North American Ice age
> approximately 1 million years ago - Greenland completely green, but not for long
> ...



*approximately 50 million years ago - top of Northern Canada starts North American Ice age
approximately 1 million years ago - Greenland completely green, but not for long
*
Your claim is that 1 million years ago, while Greenland was green, North America was in an Ice Age?

*2016 - idiot claims 2 mile high glaciers are not very old*

Link?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your claim is that 1 million years ago, while Greenland was green, North America was in an Ice Age?



For tens of millions of years, NA was in ice age while Greenland was completely green.

And the size of the glaciers digging out the Great Lakes is clue #1 about that, since the "warmers" have re-written most of the "ice age" pieces on the web to imply ice ages are really short, up down up down type of events, which is laughable.  The ice from the NA Ice age took about a million years to reach the Great Lakes, but those glaciers were short.  To get the 2 mile high glaciers to the Great Lakes, that took tens of millions of years...


And, yeah, you are the LINK to the idiot who thinks those glaciers were not very old..


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The glaciation that occurred 650,000 years ago lasted some 50,000 years.



LMFAO!!!!


Up down up down up down... 

in 50k years, you'd cover all of the Earth with 3 mile high glaciers, and then they all melt when someone farts, and then in about 20 years later they are back to 3 miles high...

THANKS....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Your claim is that 1 million years ago, while Greenland was green, North America was in an Ice Age?
> ...


*
For tens of millions of years, NA was in ice age*

You think that there were ice sheets over NA, uninterrupted, for 10s of millions of years, until about 20,000 years ago?

*
while Greenland was completely green.*

Interesting claim. Still lacking any backup.

*who thinks those glaciers were not very old..*

So no link? DERP!


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *while Greenland was completely green.*
> 
> Interesting claim. Still lacking any backup.




It is completely pointless to engage someone in debate who lies over and over about that which has been posted over and over...

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2016)

*Positive feedback drives carbon release from soils to atmosphere during Paleocene/Eocene warming

Jennifer M. Cotton*,§, 
Nathan D. Sheldon*, 
Michael T. Hren** and
Timothy M. Gallagher*
*

*Abstract*
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is the most rapid climatic warming event in the Cenozoic and informs us how the Earth system responds to large-scale changes to the carbon cycle. Warming was triggered by a massive release of 13C depleted carbon to the atmosphere, evidenced by negative carbon isotope excursions (CIE) in nearly every carbon pool on Earth. Differences in these CIEs can give insight into the response of different ecosystems to perturbations in the carbon cycle. Here we present records of δ13Ccc of pedogenic carbonates and δ13Corg from preserved soil organic matter in corresponding paleosols to understand changes to soil carbon during the PETM. CIEs during the event are larger in pedogenic carbonates than preserved organic matter for corresponding paleosols at three sites across two continents. The difference in the CIEs within soil carbon pools can be explained by increased respiration and carbon turnover rates of near-surface labile soil carbon. Increased rates of labile carbon cycling combined with decreases in the amount of preserved organic carbon in soils during the PETM suggests a decrease in the size of the soil carbon pool, resulting in a potential increase in atmospheric _p_CO2 and a positive feedback with warming. The PETM is a model for how the earth system responds to warming, and this mechanism would suggest that soils might serve as a large source for atmospheric CO2 during warming events.

*From 50 to 35 million years ago, not only was North America warmer than today, there was period when it was much warmer. No continental glaciers at this time, period.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2016)

*Arctic North American seasonal temperatures from the latest Miocene to the Early Pleistocene, based on mutual climatic range analysis of fossil beetle assemblages*
Scott A Elias, John V Matthews Jr.







Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 2002, 39(6): 911-920, 10.1139/e01-096

*ABSTRACT*
Late Tertiary and early Quaternary fossil beds in the arctic regions of North America have yielded abundant, well-preserved remains of plants and arthropods, documenting the existence of coniferous forests in the high arctic latitudes. Nearly all of the beetle (Coleoptera) specimens in these fossil assemblages represent extant species. We have applied the mutual climatic range (MCR) method of paleotemperature analysis to fossil beetle assemblages from 11 sites to estimate mean summer (_T_max) and winter (_T_min) temperatures. We found that arctic _T_min values during the latest Miocene and Pliocene were substantially warmer than they are today. The MCR estimates therefore support the scenario derived from the paleobotanical data, namely that arctic Pliocene climates were far less continental. Several Pliocene-age assemblages from the high Arctic yielded _T_max estimates 9-10°C warmer than modern values at the sites. This is the same degree of warming required to allow coniferous forests to grow in the high Arctic. By 3 million years BP, a cooling trend is marked in the paleobotanical and fossil beetle evidence from Alaska. All assemblages dating between 5.7 and 2 million years BP yielded calibrated _T_max values between 12.4 and 13.8°C, regardless of location. Thus the insect fossil data support the theory that there was far less latitudinal gradation in temperatures during the Late Pliocene than there is today. Our reconstructions suggest regional climatic cooling (especially winter temperatures) began by at least 2 million years BP

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

*So, there really were no continental glaciers before about 2 million years ago in North America. Really, some people should do some basic research before flapping yap.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2016)

*A model-data comparison of European temperatures in the Eemian interglacial

*

*Abstract*
[1] We present a comparison of reconstructed and simulated January and July temperatures in Europe for a time slice (∼125 kyr BP) within the last interglacial (Eemian, ∼127–116 kyr BP). The reconstructions, based on pollen and plant macrofossils, were performed on 48 European sites using a method based on probability density functions (_pdf_-method). The reconstructed most probable climate values were compared with a global climate simulation which was realized with a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model. Orbital parameters and greenhouse gas concentrations have been adapted to conditions at 125 kyr BP. Reconstructions and simulation are concordant in showing higher temperatures than today over most parts of Europe in summer and in revealing a west-east-gradient in winter temperature differences with increasing anomalies toward eastern Europe. The results indicate that differences in the orbital parameters are sufficient to explain the reconstructed Eemian temperature patterns.

A model-data comparison of European temperatures in the Eemian interglacial - Kaspar - 2005 - Geophysical Research Letters -  Wiley Online Library

*The Eemian had about 300 ppm of CO2, and sea levels were about 20 ft. higher than today. The climate was warmer, and the North American continental glaciers were completely melted, as they are today. So, the continental glaciers that reached down south of the Canadian border were formed completely within the time since then. 

At the site above you can get the complete article.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *while Greenland was completely green.*
> ...



*It is completely pointless to engage someone in debate who lies over and over*

But enough about you.
I haven't seen anyone here deny that Greenland was once green.
You claimed it was green while nearby, North America was in an Ice Age.

Still no proof provided. I did like the link you posted that showed both covered by ice at the same time. LOL!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *while Greenland was completely green.*
> ...


And that is why one simply posts articles from real scientists to show what a fucking liar you truly are. Yes, greenland was green on occasion in the last two million years. However, most of the time, it was buried in ice. And when the continental glaciers in North America were at there maximum, Greenland was completely covered in ice.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


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


When was Greenland green and how long was it green.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Warming was triggered by a massive release of 13C depleted carbon to the atmosphere,




The thread would not be complete without 100% pure bullshit like this...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> When was Greenland green and how long was it green.



From 1 million years ago to at least 125 million years ago.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And when the continental glaciers in North America were at there maximum, Greenland was completely covered in ice.



LOL!!

Greenland has more ice today than it ever had.  That's what an ice age does, it grows....


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I did like the link you posted that showed both covered by ice at the same time. LOL!




That was the "old school" ice age understanding.  Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over.  The old "ice age" theory was that everything froze and land never moves.  That theory was wrong.  The data proves it wrong, even today, with Greenland frozen and NA not...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I did like the link you posted that showed both covered by ice at the same time. LOL!
> ...


*
Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over.*

You still haven't documented the simultaneous North American Ice Age.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I did like the link you posted that showed both covered by ice at the same time. LOL!
> ...


You haven't proven a thing. You have just flapped yap, and posted drivel from an ignoramous. You failed to show any evidence that when NA was ice free, Greenland had more ice than today.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You still haven't documented the simultaneous North American Ice Age.




Which means you are still arguing that 2 mile high glaciers digging out the Great Lakes as recently as 16k years ago are somehow younger than 800k years old


About Our Great Lakes -Background- NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research   Lab (GLERL)


" The glacier, up to 2 miles thick,"


was produced overnight according to Todd...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> You failed to show any evidence that when NA was ice free, Greenland had more ice than today.




NA is mostly ice free today, and Greenland had more ice in February (before the iceberg season) than it ever had... so, in your infinite idiocy, you made my point for me - thanks...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You still haven't documented the simultaneous North American Ice Age.
> ...



*Which means you are still arguing that 2 mile high glaciers digging out the Great Lakes as recently as 16k years ago are somehow younger than 800k years old*

I'm arguing no such thing.
Just pointing out you've failed to backup your claims.

Your newest claim is it took 800,000 years for the ice to become 2 miles thick?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm arguing no such thing.




Then you do not understand that which you are arguing here.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your newest claim is it took 800,000 years for the ice to become 2 miles thick?




No, your claim that I haven't "proven" NA frozen while Greenland green REQUIRES YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THOSE 2 MILE HIGH GLACIERS ARE UNDER 800k years old.  Otherwise, if you accept the clear and obvious truth that those glaciers are tens of millions of years old, you'd agree I proved what I claim...

So, yeah, YOU BELIEVE those glaciers are young, or you agree with me, there is no wiggle room.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I'm arguing no such thing.
> ...



*No, your claim that I haven't "proven" NA frozen while Greenland green REQUIRES YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THOSE 2 MILE HIGH GLACIERS ARE UNDER 800k years old*

So now you need to prove the glaciers grew, without retreating, for 800,000 years or more.


These long interglacials might not help your case. 





File:Atmospheric CO2 with glaciers cycles.gif - New World Encyclopedia


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So now you need to prove the glaciers grew, without retreating, for 800,000 years or more.



So, your official position is

"The glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes were 2 miles high, but younger than 800k years old, because I believe the ice on Antarctica was formed in the last week or two..."


My position is

Those glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes originally formed further north and moved south.  By the time they get to 2 miles high, they are more than 10 million years old"


So essentially our disagreement is over the age of 2 mile high glaciers - I think they are over 10 million years old, and you think they are a few days old, since you learned your climate science by watching "Day after Tomorrow."


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> These long interglacials might not help your case.




You are correct.  My case is not based on multi-color fudge charts.  My case is based on data, and matching theory with data.

My explanation explains why those Great Lakes glaciers were 2 miles high.  Your explanation is laughable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So now you need to prove the glaciers grew, without retreating, for 800,000 years or more.
> ...


*
Those glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes originally formed further north and moved south. By the time they get to 2 miles high, they are more than 10 million years old"*

Any backup?

*and you think they are a few days old,*

Nope.
*
since you learned your climate science by watching "Day after Tomorrow."*

Wrong again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > These long interglacials might not help your case.
> ...



*My case is based on data, and matching theory with data.*

Absent any evidence.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

That you are refusing to acknowledge that 2 mile high glaciers are more than 10 million years old proves you do not have a clue what you are saying.

When those 2 mile high glaciers were digging out the Great Lakes, was the rest of Canada green and covered with plant life, or also covered with 2 mile high glaciers like Antarctica is today???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> That you are refusing to acknowledge that 2 mile high glaciers are more than 10 million years old proves you do not have a clue what you are saying.
> 
> When those 2 mile high glaciers were digging out the Great Lakes, was the rest of Canada green and covered with plant life, or also covered with 2 mile high glaciers like Antarctica is today???



*That you are refusing to acknowledge that 2 mile high glaciers are more than 10 million years old proves you do not have a clue what you are saying.
*
10 million years old.....so prove it.
Should be easy. You can no doubt provide dozens of links that agree.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You can no doubt provide dozens of links that agree.



LMFAO!!!

Parroting = proof

We do have a data point that matches - Antarctica has 2+ mile high glaciers.

How old are those?

All About Glaciers | Facts about glaciers | National Snow and Ice Data Center

"The Antarctic continent has been at least partially covered by an ice sheet for the past* 40 million year*s."


So try again.  How old are 2 mile high glaciers?

A) under 800k years
B) over 10 million years
C) something else


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You can no doubt provide dozens of links that agree.
> ...


*
We do have a data point that matches - Antarctica has 2+ mile high glaciers.*

Wow, your claims are actually getting dumber.

Not only can you not find dozens of links that agree, you can't even find one.
DERP!


*So try again.  How old are 2 mile high glaciers?
*
So try again. How old was the glacier that formed the Great Lakes?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2016)

Pleistocene : Defining and Dating the Pleistocene Boundary

Defining and Dating the Pleistocene Boundary
Typically, geologists can identify the boundaries of different time periods by locating changing rock characteristics or layers where fossils may be seen for the first or last time. However, the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary proved to be exceptionally difficult for geologists to pinpoint. The rocks containing the earliest Pleistocene fossils were mainly terrestrial sediments, whereas those in the latest Pliocene were mostly marine. The rocks at Crotone in Calabria, southern Italy, however, preserve distinct marine faunas from both time periods. In 1940 the International Geological Congress decided that the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary would be based on the marine faunas located at this site (called the type section).

Once the boundary between the Pleistocene and Pliocene had been specified, scientists could calculate its age. This depended on their ability to date changes in ocean faunas and correlate them with the rocks in Calabria, Italy.

Dating the beginning of the Pleistocene is beyond the range of radiocarbon dating and also beyond the limits of other methods that use organic materials. An alternative method is magnetostratigraphy (or paleomagnetism). By systematically collecting and measuring the orientation of magnetic grains in volcanic rocks, ashes, and other rock types, a record of Earth's magnetic history can be constructed. New localities can be placed into the context of this history if they contain rocks with magnetic grains. For the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary, biostratigraphic information could be correlated to a magnetostratigraphic event called the Olduvai Normal. This suggested that the lower Pleistocene boundary could be no older than 1.8 million years ago. 

*The Pleistocene boundry is no older than 1.8 million years ago. No ten million year old continental glaciers.*


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not only can you not find dozens of links that agree, you can't even find one.



You seem to think I "get my thoughts" by parroting people who I know are fudgebaking liars.  I don't.  My thoughts are mine, which is why Crick cannot find a single Tippy who can answer the question of why the AA circle has 9 times the ice of the other.  


That you are too chicken to even attempt to answer the question about how old the 2 mile high glaciers were that dug out the Great Lakes is a tribute to your own inability to think and perceive without parroting someone else.

Try this on for size.  The Great Lakes are OUTSIDE of the Arctic Circle, and way outside of the 600 miles from the pole distance that starts ice ages.  














What the two charts above demonstrate is that the height of ice age glaciers goes DOWN further from the pole.  It is not perfectly linear, but the correlation is obvious.  Antarctic glaciers are UNDER 2 miles high by the time they get to the edge of the Antarctic Circle.

Hence, the NA ice age, with 2 mile thick glacier outside of the Arctic Circle in the Great Lakes are, was OLDER than the AA ice age is now.  Hence the ice on NA was there for 

MORE THAN 40 million years...

Now, back to the Conspiracy room for you, telling everyone how a 757 hit the Pentagon while its engines were IN THE GROUND..l.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2016)

Pleistocene : Pleistocene Glacial Events

Pleistocene Glacial Events
The Pleistocene geological record gives evidence of 20 cycles of advancing and retreating continental glaciers, though during most of the Pleistocene glaciers were far more extensive than they are today. Much of this glaciation occurred at high latitudes and high altitudes, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. Up to 30% of the Earth's surface was glaciated periodically during the Pleistocene. Large portions of Europe, North America (including Greenland), South America, all of Antarctica, and small sections of Asia were entirely covered by ice. In North America during the peak of the Wisconsinan glaciation approximately 18,000 years ago, there were two massive yet independent ice sheets. Both the eastern Laurentide and the western Cordilleran ice sheets were over 3900 meters thick. In Europe, ice covered Scandinavia, extended south and east across Germany and western Russia, and southwest to the British Isles. Another ice sheet covered most of Siberia. In South America, Patagonia and the southern Andes mountains were beneath part of the Antarctic ice sheet. Because so much water was taken up as ice, global sea level dropped approximately 140 meters.

The causes of the Pleistocene cycle of glacial and interglacial episodes are still being debated. It appears that continental positions, oceanic circulation, solar-energy fluctuations, and Earth's orbital cycles combined to generate these glacial conditions, so perhaps it is inappropriate to pinpoint any single cause. Some scientists have calculated that changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases were a partial reason for large (5-7° C) global temperature swings between the ice ages and interglacial periods.

Two scientists greatly influenced how Pleistocene glaciations were interpreted. In the 1800s, geologists were studying widespread surface deposits called _diluvium_. This archaic term referred to deposits that could not be explained by the normal action of rivers and seas, but instead were believed to have been produced by extraordinary floods of vast extent. Louis Agassiz, a Swiss geologist who initially worked on fossil fish, demonstrated that diluvium was actually a ground moraine formed by continental glaciation. The other influential figure, the Yugoslav mathematician M. Milankovitch, showed that variation in Earth's orbital motions could explain periodic climate changes, including continental glaciation.

*So, in the last 1.8 million years, the continental glaciers have advanced and retreated 20 times. That means that 20 times they have gone from 2 miles deep to bare ground. 

Now this information is from the Smithsonian, so, LaDumbkopf, why don't you link us some information that supports your assertations.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDumbkopf, we have been discussing Greenland and North America. That you feel the urgent need to change the subject demonstrates just how seriously your arguments are flawed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Not only can you not find dozens of links that agree, you can't even find one.
> ...



*You seem to think I "get my thoughts" by parroting people who I know are fudgebaking liars.*

I don't know where you get them, I just know you can't prove your claims.
*
how a 757 hit the Pentagon while its engines were IN THE GROUND..l*

Inertia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Derp.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Still looking for a Kodak photo I see! DERP


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Still looking for any proof of his stupid claims.
Did you see the newest?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


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


Nice flip


----------



## jc456 (Jul 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 31, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> in the last 1.8 million years, the continental glaciers have advanced and retreated 20 times.




and if you believe that, you will never ever have a clue on the subject of Earth climate change.

What a laughable piece of trash in the face of ICE CORE data which clearly refutes it, mainly that the ice cores on Antarctica (the only ones on the planet that old) did not melt at all during that entire 1.8 million year period.  Ditto for Greenland's over the past 800k years .


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.




You go right on claiming the 2 mile high glaciers digging out the Great Lakes south of the Arctic Circle were under 50 years old...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 31, 2016)

jc456 said:


> All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.




jc, the fact that the glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes were 2 miles high blows away the warmer claim that they are somehow younger than the Greenland ice age (aka 800k years)

When Greenland was completely green 1 million years ago, the ice age glaciers covering NA down to Indiana were taller and older than the glaciers which today cover Antarctica, which are estimated at 40 million years old and are likely older than that..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.
> ...



How old were they? Now prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.
> ...



*When Greenland was completely green 1 million years ago, the ice age glaciers covering NA down to Indiana were taller and older than the glaciers which today cover Antarctica*

And you still won't provide proof.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 31, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> 
> Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.
> 
> ...


----------



## MaryL (Jul 31, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> 
> Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.
> 
> ...


Well, someone telling me there isn't global warming and they even disparage it and call us "warmers". Funny the global climate Is warming and we see dramatic changes in climate and massive forest fires and the rise in Earth's overall temps. Glaciers melting. But this is just a natural blip in the climate? No, don't  think so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> ...



*we see dramatic changes in climate*

Dramatic changes? Sounds serious.

*and massive forest fires*

Yeah, those never happened before.

*But this is just a natural blip in the climate?*

What's the difference between a natural blip and an unnatural blip? Any stats, or just feelings?


----------



## MaryL (Jul 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


What bothers me is the flippant attitude people have here about this. Turn up your air conditioning and drown out the warming global climate and people like me.Yes, the climate is changing, Yes, humanity is causing it, not variants like solar temps or other variables. Human created CO2 is the culprit, along with heat bubbles created over human cities, a major problem, we are seeing  major droughts and forest fires now, because of human pollution,and we can't escape it anymore.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



*Yes, the climate is changing*

Do you know of a 100 year period where it didn't change?

*we are seeing  major droughts and forest fires now,*

I'm pretty sure we've seen those before.
How do you know these ones are our fault?

What's the difference between a natural blip and an unnatural blip? Any stats, or just feelings?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 1, 2016)

Damn. In the depths of an ice age, the CO2 was at 180 ppm. And CH4 was about 400 ppb. In the Eemian, 120,000 years ago, the CO2 was 300 ppm, and CH4 about 800 ppb. At that time, the climate was slightly warmer, and the oceans were about 20 ft higher than at present. 

Now in the last 150 years, we have gone from 280 ppm CO2 to 400+ ppm CO2, from 750 ppb CH4 to 1800+ ppb CH4. But you want to tell me that is not having any effect?

Forty five years ago, I had a job that included fighting forest fires. The fires we fought were measured in acres, and most were knocked down with what today would be considered minor effort. In that same area, last year, they had a fire that burned 175 square miles, and was pushed by a wind that the area had only experianced once before in the last century. It was spotting two miles ahead of itself. Even with the best of equipment, they could not stop it. In fact, their efforts were concentrated on saving the three small towns in that area. At the same time, unusual winds were creating the same kinds of fires north and east of there in Oregon, and all across Northeastern Washington. 

Yes, we are seeing unusual conditions. This year we saw a fire that burned a town in Alberta, and about a thousand square miles of forest. While there have been big fires before, we did not have super tankers and the equipment we have today to fight those fires. Even with the equipment we have today, when we get that unusual weather, all we can try to do is save the towns. 

Yes, weather changes over the period of a century. However, what counts is the rate of change, and that is accelerating at present, and will continue to accelerate as the oceans and atmosphere warms.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


timelines overlap.  he's done.

450000 to 800000 years ago, Greenland green --link presented
16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented.  If you can't see the overlap timeline, I can't help you.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> ...


what dramatic change have you seen?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 1, 2016)

Television hasn't been around long enough to be a measure of global warming, even if that were possible, which it isn't.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn. In the depths of an ice age, the CO2 was at 180 ppm. And CH4 was about 400 ppb. In the Eemian, 120,000 years ago, the CO2 was 300 ppm, and CH4 about 800 ppb. At that time, the climate was slightly warmer, and the oceans were about 20 ft higher than at present.
> 
> Now in the last 150 years, we have gone from 280 ppm CO2 to 400+ ppm CO2, from 750 ppb CH4 to 1800+ ppb CH4. But you want to tell me that is not having any effect?
> 
> ...



In 1871, during the week of Oct. 8-14, it must have seemed like the whole world was ablaze for residents of the Upper Midwest. Four of the worst fires in U.S. history all broke out in the same week across the region. The Great Chicago Fire, which destroyed about a third of the city's valuation at the time and left more than 100,000 residents homeless, stole the headlines.

But at the same time, three other fires also scorched the region. Blazes leveled the Michigan cities of Holland and Manistee in what has been referred to as the Great Michigan Fire, while across the state another fire destroyed the city of Port Huron. The worst fire of them all, however, might have been the Great Peshtigo Fire, a firestorm that ravaged the Wisconsin countryside, leaving more than 1,500 dead — the most fatalities by fire in U.S. history.

That all of these devastating fires happened at the same time, over such wide distances, has persuaded many researchers that it was no coincidence. In fact, some have even suggested that the fires were caused by a shower of meteorites, fragments from the impact of Comet Biela. Others believe that high winds moving through the region offer a more sensible explanation for the unusual confluence of events.

---------

The Great Fire of 1910, also occasionally referred to as the "Big Burn," is believed to be the largest single fire in recorded U.S. history. It burned more than 3 million acres in Idaho, Montana and Washington — in all, a total area roughly the size of Connecticut. There were 87 fatalities from the fire and 78 of those were firefighters.

The handling of the blaze went on to shape the future of the U.S. Forest Service. Immediately after the 1910 fire, the service vowed to fight all wildfires, even ones that are naturally occurring and of no threat to human life or property. The merits of this policy are still debated today, especially by ecologists who insist that some wildfires are necessary for ecosystem health.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 1, 2016)

I blame astronomers for the meteor.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn. In the depths of an ice age, the CO2 was at 180 ppm. And CH4 was about 400 ppb. In the Eemian, 120,000 years ago, the CO2 was 300 ppm, and CH4 about 800 ppb. At that time, the climate was slightly warmer, and the oceans were about 20 ft higher than at present.
> 
> Now in the last 150 years, we have gone from 280 ppm CO2 to 400+ ppm CO2, from 750 ppb CH4 to 1800+ ppb CH4. But you want to tell me that is not having any effect?
> 
> ...


so tell me, do  you think the fires are worse today because of global warming, or the fact that millions of people moved into those forest areas on the west coast over the course of a hundred plus years?  Apples and Oranges  When did the country open up the westward expansion?  the lunacy of you all is amazing. Can you imagine adding wooden homes in an already wooded area blocking out airflow and creating additional fuel for a fire don't you understand?

Edit: not to mention the number of added igniting possibilities. Why was there a smokey the bear?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 1, 2016)

Fires are caused by fuel, oxygen and heat.  Damn that oxygen...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 1, 2016)

MaryL said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



I guess world population 1800 was around 1 billion people today it is over 7 billion.

So 6 billion more people exhaling must be a contributor to the increase in C02...

We neeed more liberal abortions that will solve it.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Now in the last 150 years, we have gone from 280 ppm CO2 to 400+ ppm CO2, from 750 ppb CH4 to 1800+ ppb CH4. But you want to tell me that is not having any effect?




The DATA tells you that, parrot.  

Highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data shows NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE.

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica adds at least 80 billion tons of ice every year.


CO2 has precisely NOTHING to do with Earth temperature - sincerely, the DATA


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

saveliberty said:


> Fires are caused by fuel, oxygen and heat. Damn that oxygen...




... because it couldn't be that humans are consuming more and more of nature's fresh water, drying out plant life...

nope, because there would be some "expert" for your BIRDBRAIN to PARROT if that was happening...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

saveliberty said:


> Television hasn't been around long enough to be a measure of global warming, even if that were possible, which it isn't.




TV show "Hawaii 50" has been around twice, and both times on the SAME BEACH, and the beach is just as far out in the water this time as it was 50 years ago....

which is why all of the warmers' "sinking islands" are right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




*
16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented*

Yes, his theory that North America was buried under ice, continuously for a million plus years, until 16000 years ago, was funny.
And wrong.
So if his "overlap" is based on bad info, why do you feel that proves his claim?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

saveliberty said:


> Fires are caused by fuel, oxygen and heat.  Damn that oxygen...



Adding CO2 and reducing oxygen should cut the number of fires. (LOL!)


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

This is our dispute.

The glaciers digging out the Great Lakes were 2 miles tall, outside the Arctic Circle, 500 plus miles from where the NA ice age began at the top of Northern Canada.  Todd thinks those 2 mile high glaciers were just a few weeks old.  I think they were the result of tens of millions of years of NA being under a growing ice age.  That's our dispute. How old were those 2 mile high glaciers digging out the Great Lakes.  

The Antarctic Ice Age, estimated to be at least 40 million years old, does not have 2 mile high glaciers out by the Antarctic Circle yet.  It will in the next few million years, but not yet, proving that the NA ice age was older 16k years ago than the AA ice age is now... unless you get your "climate science" from the "Day after Tomorrow" movie like Todd does...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> This is our dispute.
> 
> The glaciers digging out the Great Lakes were 2 miles tall, outside the Arctic Circle, 500 plus miles from where the NA ice age began at the top of Northern Canada.  Todd thinks those 2 mile high glaciers were just a few weeks old.  I think they were the result of tens of millions of years of NA being under a growing ice age.  That's our dispute. How old were those 2 mile high glaciers digging out the Great Lakes.
> 
> The Antarctic Ice Age, estimated to be at least 40 million years old, does not have 2 mile high glaciers out by the Antarctic Circle yet.  It will in the next few million years, but not yet, proving that the NA ice age was older 16k years ago than the AA ice age is now... unless you get your "climate science" from the "Day after Tomorrow" movie like Todd does...


*
Todd thinks those 2 mile high glaciers were just a few weeks old.*

I think if you doubled your IQ, you'd reach cretin level intelligence.
*
proving that the NA ice age was older 16k years ago than the AA ice age is now*

Any glacier shrinkage during those pesky interglacial periods you like to ignore?
*
That's our dispute. How old were those 2 mile high glaciers digging out the Great Lakes.* 

Feel free to post a link backing your claim.
It would be a nice change.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Any glacier shrinkage during those pesky interglacial periods you like to ignore?




ice cores suggest ice ages do not shrink, they grow by manufacturing a new ice core every year, which is FROZEN...

That two mile high glacier grew a tiny bit each year as it pushed slowly south.  To fail to understand how old is that glacier is to admit you'd believe CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice... while growing Antarctic Sea Ice at the same time...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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





Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Post #215, link provided.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Any glacier shrinkage during those pesky interglacial periods you like to ignore?
> ...



*ice cores suggest ice ages do not shrink*

Glaciers don't shrink? LOL!
You can post your ice core data from the NA glacier if that proves your claim.

*That two mile high glacier grew a tiny bit each year as it pushed slowly south.*

Yup.
*
To fail to understand how old is that glacier is*

To fail to prove how old it was.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

#215 was Crick.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Glaciers don't shrink?



Ice age glaciers do not shrink, until the tectonic plate moves the ice age glacier away from the Pole...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You can post your ice core data from the NA glacier if that proves your claim.



A stupid question about that which no longer exists.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> To fail to prove how old it was.



If we went to court with just what is posted and linked here, you'd lose, unless Mammooo and Crick were on the jury...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


hmm interesting.  another was #220


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Post #217.....

_The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought. _

_The __DNA__ is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles. _

_From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer. _

_“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen. _

_Less glacial cover in ancient Greenland means the global ocean was probably between three and six feet higher during that time compared to current levels, the scientists say. _

_“To get this site ice free you would’ve had to remove the ice cover from about the southern third of Greenland,” study team member Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, told LiveScience. _

_The findings, detailed in the July 6 issue of the journal Science, demonstrate how far the young field of ancient DNA research has come: scientists can now recreate an environment’s climate and ecology using only recovered DNA, without the need for fossils that might be absent or hard to reach. _

_“To go from dirty water to a forest full of insects is pretty amazing,” study team member Matthew Collins, a biomolecular archaeologist at the University of York, said in a related Science news article. _

_Greenland’s thick ice sheets served as a perfect, natural freezer for preserving the prehistoric DNA. Older genetic samples have been found, but none in such pristine condition as the new Greenland samples. _

_The team says their technique could be applied to DNA found in other icy parts of the globe, such as __Antarctica__. “Given that 10 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial surface is covered by thick ice sheets, it could open up a world of new discoveries,” said study team member Enrico Cappellini of the University of York in the United Kingdom. _

_Plants still survive in Greenland today, although mostly along the island’s coast, since the interior is blanketed in ice. “There’s tundra vegetation,” Sharp said. “There’s also dwarf birch probably, and willows almost are certain. But not pine or spruce, which we have in the DNA here.”_

I never denied Greenland was green, BTW.

No mention in there of continent spanning glacier in NA during any green period in Greenland.

Thanks for trying to help LaDerpster, he can use all the help he can get.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Glaciers don't shrink?
> ...



*Ice age glaciers do not shrink, until the tectonic plate moves the ice age glacier away from the Pole...*

The NA glacier melted 20,000 years ago because the NA plate suddenly moved south? DERP!

*A stupid question about that which no longer exists.*

Not as stupid as mentioning Ice Cores as some sort of proof concerning the NA ice sheet.
*
If we went to court with just what is posted and linked here, you'd lose*

If you posted proof of the million plus year age of the NA glacier, what post #?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



_Around 16,000 years ago _*glaciers*_ covered _*Indiana*_. For hundreds of years, the _*glaciers*_ moved about a foot a day. While moving outward and then retreating back, the _*glaciers*_ carved the land. As the ice melted, the _*glaciers*_ created and left behind dunes, hills, rivers and lakes._

No help there......


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


you're correct, in that link there was no mention of north america.  I agree.  It was the post with the link for North America in #220.  Again, timelines intersect between 450,000 and 800,000.  so if the link in #220 says north america was ice up to 16,000 years ago out 1 million years, and greenland was green less than that time frame at 450,000 to 800,000, they intersect right there.  16,000 years ago is years away from 450,000 year ago in my math.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


no help with what exactly.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The NA glacier melted 20,000 years ago because the NA plate suddenly moved south? DERP!




The "glacier manufacturing zone" is approximately 600 miles from an Earth pole.  This is where the annual snowfall ceases to fully melt, and hence ice ages being.  When an ice age moves outside of the GMZ, it ceases to be an "ice age" and no longer reliably manufactures its annual ice core.

What is truly hilarious about your argument here is that, if the 2 mile high glaciers that dug out the Great Lakes had already started to shrink, then they were taller than 2 miles before the shrinkage started, making them EVEN OLDER...

LOL!!!


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


> no help with what exactly.




Todd knows those 2 mile high glaciers were way older than 2 million years old, and hence he lost the argument, and the statement

Greenland froze while NA thawed

is irrefutable.

But argue on he will, like Johnny Cochran defending OJ, hoping Crick and Mammooo are on the jury....


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*The NA glacier melted 20,000 years ago because the NA plate suddenly moved south?*

Are  you denying the continent moved?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> While moving outward and then retreating back,




This is simply not the case.  All of the marks on the bedrock show north to south glacier movement.  Glaciers start on the part of the continent closest to the pole, and then move from that point away from the pole.  Glaciers do not suddenly decide to reverse course, unless you are a Tippy Toppiest with 100% pure morons as supporters...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*Again, timelines intersect between 450,000 and 800,000*

Sometime, not during the entire time.
*
was ice up to 16,000 years ago out 1 million years*

Where did you see from 16,000 all the way to 1,000,000, with no interruption?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > no help with what exactly.
> ...




*Todd knows those 2 mile high glaciers were way older than 2 million years old*

I know that you make claims.....with no backup.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



How much did it move in the last 20,000 years?
Or the 20,000 before that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > While moving outward and then retreating back,
> ...


*
This is simply not the case. All of the marks on the bedrock show north to south glacier movement.*

You think retreat means actually moving north?
That is the dumbest think you've said yet. And that's saying a lot!


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where did you see from 16,000 all the way to 1,000,000, with no interruption?




Just tell us, Todd, without the endless Cochran-esque legalese.... just how old is a 2 mile high glacier????


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 1, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Ice age glaciers do not shrink, until the tectonic plate moves the ice age glacier away from the Pole...


Say what!?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 1, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The NA glacier melted 20,000 years ago because the NA plate suddenly moved south? DERP!
> ...


Great Lakes are 10,000 years old.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you see from 16,000 all the way to 1,000,000, with no interruption?
> ...



_Approximately 300,000 years ago, the Illinois Episode of glaciation began. During the 175,000 years of this episode, the ice advanced three times out of the northeastern center of accumulation. During the Illinois Episode, North American continental glaciers reached their southernmost position, located just north of the Shawnee Hills in southern Illinois (see figure 4c ). During the first of these advances, ice of this episode reached westward across Illinois and into Iowa. After the Illinois Episode, during the Sangamon interglacial interval, another major soil, the Sangamon Geosol, developed._

_Next came the Wisconsin Episode of glaciation, which created the landscape we see today. The Wisconsin glaciers advanced into Illinois about 25,000 years ago. Although late Wisconsin glaciers advanced across northeastern Illinois, they did not reach southern or western Illinois (see figure 4d). As the glaciers advanced, earth materials from previous times were buried, transported, or otherwise rearranged. As the Wisconsin ice retreated, large ridges of deposited earth materials—called moraines—were formed. The Illinois Episode left few moraines, and all are markedly smaller in size than the later Wisconsin moraines. Illinois moraines are only preserved south of the limits of the younger Wisconsin age glacier.

Illinois State Geological Survey Glaciers Smooth the Surface | ISGS_


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 1, 2016)

Ask Todd a question, don't expect an answer.... expect some parroting that is blown away by the reality of the truth of the age of a 2 mile high glacier...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Ask Todd a question, don't expect an answer.... expect some parroting that is blown away by the reality of the truth of the age of a 2 mile high glacier...



Still waiting for your proof.
Let's see backup for your millions of years claim.


----------



## Crick (Aug 1, 2016)

Dex, basic math.  How many days in 175,000 years?

Give up?  63,875,000.

How many inches in two miles?

Give up?  126,720

What accumulation rate is required to build up two miles of ice in 175,000 years?

Give up?  0.0019838748 inches per day

Think about that Mr Dex.  Think hard.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Dex, basic math.  How many days in 175,000 years?
> 
> Give up?  63,875,000.
> 
> ...



I don't think math is one of his strong suits.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 1, 2016)

Nor is thinking.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Nor is thinking.



What?

This is from an old guy who imbelesihs the fact that he forgot about his youth?

And can't phantom ice that melts?

In psychology terms that sounds like a guy that is a narrocosit ..

4.5 billion years latter he thinks he was born in the right little 100 year time frame to command " look at me the world is going to end"

Sorry pay you won't see it, or your grand kids or their grand kids


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Sometime, not during the entire time.*

Who said entire time?

*Where did you see from 16,000 all the way to 1,000,000, with no interruption*

The link


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Good question, are you saying it didn't move?


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2016)

bear513 said:


> What?
> This is from an old guy who imbelesihs  [*EMBELLISH*?] the fact that he forgot about his youth?And can't phantom [*FATHOM*?] ice that melts? In psychology terms that sounds like a guy that is a narrocosit .. [*NARCISSIST*?] 4.5 billion years latter he thinks he was born in the right little 100 year time frame to command " look at me the world is going to end" Sorry pay [*PAL*?] you won't see it, or your grand kids or their grand kids



Don't drink and post.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> Dex, basic math.  How many days in 175,000 years?
> 
> Give up?  63,875,000.
> 
> ...





The annual ice cores 500 feet below the surface and lower are compressed way beyond 2 inches.  Antarctica is a 40+ million year old ice age and its glaciers are still not yet 2 miles high as they get to the edge of the Antarctic Circle.

But nice try..


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't think math is one of his strong suits.




One thing is for certain = nobody here got a higher score on the Math SAT than I did, because nobody can...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Not there.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Are you saying it did? How far?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think math is one of his strong suits.
> ...



And your weak showing here......traumatic brain injury? Drugs? Tertiary syphilis?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

I'm not the idiot here who thinks a two mile high glacier is under a million years old.  Any idea which idiot here thinks that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> I'm not the idiot here who thinks a two mile high glacier is under a million years old.  Any idea which idiot here thinks that?



You're the idiot who thinks it has to be a million years old, but can't show that anyone agrees with you.

Those pesky interglacials just keep getting in your way, eh?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


well since all of the continents were all together and why asians were able to migrate onto the continent without boats, I'd say yeah it moved. from the University of Wisconsin Green Bay;

North American Plate

snippet:

"North America, Greenland and Eurasia were once part of Pangaea. The east coast of North America was attached to West Africa. This northern portion of Pangaea has been called Laurasia and was separated from Gondwanaland by a large wedge-shaped sea, the Tethys. (The name Laurasia is a blend of Laurentia, from the St. Lawrence River, and Eurasia.) Laurasia began to break apart from Gondwanaland about 180 million years ago. Greenland and Eurasia broke off about 80 million years ago."


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Cenozoic Era | geochronology

Snippet:

"On a global scale the Cenozoic witnessed the further dismemberment of the Northern Hemispheric supercontinent of Laurasia: Greenland and Scandinavia separated during the early Cenozoic about 55 million years ago, and the Norwegian-Greenland Sea emerged, linking the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans. The Atlantic continued to expand while the Pacific experienced a net reduction in size as a result of continued seafloor spreading. The equatorially situated east–west Tethyan seaway linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans was modified significantly in the east during the middle Eocene—about 45 million years ago—by the junction of India with Eurasia, and it was severed into two parts by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans was modified significantly in the east during the middle Eocene—about 45 million years ago—by the junction of India with Eurasia, and it was severed into two parts by the confluence of Africa, Arabia, and Eurasia during the early Miocene approximately 18 million years ago. The western part of the Tethys evolved into the Mediterranean Sea not long after it had been cut off from the global ocean system about 6 million to 5 million years ago and had formed evaporite deposits which reach up to several kilometres in thickness in a land-locked basin that may have resembled Death Valley in present-day California. Antarctica remained centred on the South Pole throughout the Cenozoic, but the northern continents _*converged in a northward direction*_"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*well since all of the continents were all together and why asians were able to migrate onto the continent without boats, I'd say yeah it moved.*

You think Asians migrated because the plates moved in the last 20,000 years?

Are you familiar with Ron White?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


no because the ice was melting allowing for travel and the connection to siberia through alaska allowed migration.  At least that is the theory.

Here's how the plates moved:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*no because the ice was melting allowing for travel*

The melting ice allowed for travel? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


yep, and on that one, you can look up.  you still haven't said if you believe the continents moved or not.  dare to step out or hide behind the keyboard?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're the idiot who thinks it has to be a million years old, but can't show that anyone agrees with you.



There is only one place on Earth today with 2 mile high glaciers, and that is Antarctica.

Greenland's max is just under 2 miles thick, but that is up north where the ice age began.  The glaciers in Indiana 16k years ago originated in Northern Canada, which must have had 3 mile thick glaciers, indicating the NA ice age was older than the AA ice age is today.  That is also a good clue how high AA and Greenland glaciers will get in the future...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*yep, and on that one, you can look up.*

Why would melting ice allow for travel? Spell it out.

*you still haven't said if you believe the continents moved or not.* 

LaDerpster feels the last Ice Age ended, 20 thousand years age, because North America finally moved far enough south of the pole. Do you agree with his latest theory?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

[/QUOTE]

*well since all of the continents were all together and why asians were able to migrate onto the continent without boats, I'd say yeah it moved.*

You think Asians migrated because the plates moved in the last 20,000 years?

Are you familiar with Ron White?[/QUOTE]


The theory is that sea level was lower because AA had plenty of ice, but NA had more.  The NA ice is now gone, while AA and Greenland have added less than what melted on NA.

Once again, two ice age glaciers were growing, while one was retreating.  Ice ages are CONTINENT SPECIFIC, not global...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're the idiot who thinks it has to be a million years old, but can't show that anyone agrees with you.
> ...


*
There is only one place on Earth today with 2 mile high glaciers, and that is Antarctica.*

Do 2 mile high glaciers act the same today as they did 100,000 years ago?
Do Antarctic glaciers act differently than ones in Illinois?

*Northern Canada, which must have had 3 mile thick glaciers, indicating the NA ice age was older than the AA ice age is today.*

If only you had someone that agreed with your claims.
So you could post that info here.
So I can stop mocking you.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LaDerpster feels the last Ice Age ended, 20 thousand years age, because North America finally moved far enough south of the pole. Do you agree with his latest theory?




That is the theory, and it isn't exactly new.  I gave it to the Feds in 2009.

Nobody disputes that the NA plate is moving SW and has for millions of years.

The exact details of the NA ice age melt are somewhat unclear.  Yellowstone's last eruption was 600k years ago.  Clearly, that wiped out some ice, but not all of it.  But what is indisputable is that NA was covered with ice age glacier from 50 million years ago until very recently.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*LaDerpster feels the last Ice Age ended, 20 thousand years age, because North America finally moved far enough south of the pole. Do you agree with his latest theory?*
I didn't ask ladexter I asked you.  you can't answer I see and I see you can't use the internet either.  too bad, I guess you just stay uninformed.  No surprise though.  you're lazy.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do 2 mile high glaciers act the same today as they did 100,000 years ago?



Why wouldn't they?


As for

ONLY PARROTING WILL BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF... try to explain this...


Google


Why did Obama, clearly a science invalid parrot and kleptocrat, shut up for 2 years?

LOL!!!

When the truth of THAT comes out, will you still demand PARROTING, or will you accept the truth of the FBI Fraud case against the Tippys???


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

The NA ice age ended 20k or so years ago.  The Greenland and AA ice ages grew straight through the melt on NA and are still growing today.

ICE AGES = CONTINENT SPECIFIC

Warmer nonsense about "interglacials" = bullshit fudge and fraud


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Of course the plates move.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Do 2 mile high glaciers act the same today as they did 100,000 years ago?
> ...



Why would they?

As far as parroting, I can see why you're the sole voice for your theories. Derp.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


It's obvious you give two shits what the ice age was about, so you offer no relevance to a discussion.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


which direction?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Just pointing out the Derpster's idiocy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



It varies.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 2, 2016)

You haven't laid a glove on any of my statements or theories.

All you have is parroting from Tippys and some nonsense that you cannot parrot an answer to the question

How old are 2 mile high glaciers?

As soon as you offer some credible evidence that those 2 mile high glaciers in Indiana, which originated in Northern Canada, are younger than a million years old, I will pay attention to you...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


it does?  start with NA, which way did it move?  hint, I posted a video for review


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



It does. You think they all move in the same direction? At the same rate?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> You haven't laid a glove on any of my statements or theories.
> 
> All you have is parroting from Tippys and some nonsense that you cannot parrot an answer to the question
> 
> ...



*How old are 2 mile high glaciers?*

When is the last time a glacier in Illinois was 2 miles high?


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> As soon as you offer some credible evidence that those 2 mile high glaciers in Indiana, which originated in Northern Canada, are younger than a million years old, I will pay attention to you...



Wait a minute.  Are you actually suggesting that the glaciers in Indiana traveled there from northern Canada?  That it was the same ice?  If not, what do you mean by "originated in Northern (sic) Canada"?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LaDerpster feels the last Ice Age ended, 20 thousand years age, because North America finally moved far enough south of the pole. Do you agree with his latest theory?
> ...


You gave it to whom? The Feds? Now what the hell would the Feds do with your Hypothesis? If you actually knew anything at all about science, you would have submitted that hypothesis to someone in the field of geology. Specifically, in the field of glacialogy. 

However, your hypothesis is pure bullshit. We have ample evidence of the interglacials, and of the time periods between them. You haven't shown why all the evidence presented by thousands of geologists is wrong. In fact, you have not shown anything at all in support of your nonsense.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> You haven't laid a glove on any of my statements or theories.
> 
> All you have is parroting from Tippys and some nonsense that you cannot parrot an answer to the question
> 
> ...


*Very simple, the Eemian interglacial was 120,000 years ago. North America was warmer during that period than it was 8000 years ago. And North America was free of continental glaciers. So the continental glaciers you claim were in Indiana, are a good deal less than 120,000 years.*

European Commission : CORDIS : News and Events : Scientists question Eemian period analogy

Most experts agree that the Eemian period, a warm one that emerged some 125 000 years ago after the Saalian ice age, is a good one to consider for their studies. The planet's average temperatures during the Eemian period were higher than the temperatures we currently have. Even parts of the Greenland ice had melted, and the global sea level was higher than what it is today.

'Therefore, the Eemian time is suited apparently so well as a basis for the topical issue of climate change,' explains Dr Henning Bauch of the Academy of Sciences and Literature Mainz (AdW Mainz) at GEOMAR | Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany. 

But in this latest study, Dr Bauch, in cooperation with Dr Evgeniya Kandiano of GEOMAR and Dr Jan Helmke of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, show one important difference between the Eemian period and today's time: the development in the Arctic Ocean.

According to the researchers, in the current warm period, known as the Holocene, oceanic and atmospheric circulation delivers extensive amounts of heat northward into the high latitudes. The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift are key examples. Northern Europe has pleasant temperatures because of the currents, which go as far as the Arctic.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> We have ample evidence of the interglacials,




Truth be told, you have precisely no evidence, other than your ability to parrot colored fudge charts...


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> the Eemian interglacial was 120,000 years ago. North America was warmer during that period than it was 8000 years ago.




and you were there, with your satellites, monitoring all of it....

LOL!!!


How old is a 2 mile high glacier??


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


in the  video, which way did NA move, actually spun a little west/ southwest and Greenland move west/ northwest.  but most generally the continents moved in a westerly path.  Again, from the video it shows sort of rotation.  I posted the video for some reference.  It's not clear what you mean by it varies.  but that isn't unlike you. 

Let's see your data about the variances of the plate movement.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 4, 2016)

Plates move but also rotate.  South America has swung like a soccer player kicking.  SA pointed SE 100 million years ago, now points SW.  

This rotating also explains the "magnetic pole changes" BS.  Those who came up with the claim that the Earth's magnetic field switches poles from time to time assumed the plates did not rotate.  They do.  There is no Earth magnetic field flopping, just rotating plates that end up facing the other way from which the lava originally cooled...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Plates move but also rotate.  South America has swung like a soccer player kicking.  SA pointed SE 100 million years ago, now points SW.
> 
> This rotating also explains the "magnetic pole changes" BS.  Those who came up with the claim that the Earth's magnetic field switches poles from time to time assumed the plates did not rotate.  They do.  There is no Earth magnetic field flopping, just rotating plates that end up facing the other way from which the lava originally cooled...



Yeah, the sea floor is rotating, back and forth.

Derp!


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 4, 2016)

Not every plate rotates, but some do.  SA is a great example.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Not every plate rotates, but some do.  SA is a great example.



Evidence of magnetic pole reversal on the sea floor cannot be explained by the sea floor rotating.
So how do you explain it?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Not every plate rotates, but some do.  SA is a great example.
> ...


so you think there is an actual pole that is magnetic? that is a good DERP.

here some material you can digest:

Earths Magnetic Pole Shifting Accelerates

snippet:

"Scientists have also determined with information from the SWARM satellites, that over the past six months, there has been a marked decrease in the power of the Earth’s magnetic field by up to 15 percent. Some of the many risks involved in a weakening of the Earth’s magnetic fields include climate change, increased solar storms which can cause the electrical grid to collapse, temporary ozone holes and possible increased exposure to radiation leading to an increased rate of cancer in humans.

The shift in acceleration of the Earth’s magnetic poles originates from the planet’s core. Large areas of the Western Hemisphere have seen decreased power in the magnetic field while a large area in the _*southern Indian Ocean*_ has seen an increase in the field’s power. Scientists will be able to continue analyzing data from the SWARM satellites over the next few months to determine if these findings match up with other signal orientations from the rest of the Earth layers such as the ionosphere, mantle, crust, oceans and magnetosphere."

And will you take a fkn look at that.  The Indian Ocean.  You supposed they were looking at the water?  hahaahahahahahahahahaha

I love your failure of trying to be a smart ass.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Evidence of magnetic pole reversal on the sea floor cannot be explained by the sea floor rotating.



Sea floor can rotate.  It can also push past a pole, which reverses the magnetic field lines as well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence of magnetic pole reversal on the sea floor cannot be explained by the sea floor rotating.
> ...



That's some busy sea floor to fit your theory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


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


*
so you think there is an actual pole that is magnetic?*

North Magnetic Pole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jc456 (Aug 4, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



why do you suppose it's moving?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 4, 2016)

It is all about what is at the center of the Earth... lots and lots of iron, spinning....


----------



## Crick (Aug 5, 2016)

Mag field reversals are recorded by magma upwelling at spreading centers like the Mid Atlantic Ridge. Spreading centers do not produce rotation.  Mag reversals are not recorded in cold tectonic plates moving about.

Man, you are the geology whiz, aren't you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Mag field reversals are recorded by magma upwelling at spreading centers like the Mid Atlantic Ridge. Spreading centers do not produce rotation.  Mag reversals are not recorded in cold tectonic plates moving about.
> 
> Man, you are the geology whiz, aren't you.



Can you imagine the entire Mid-Atlantic ridge spinning like a top to mimic the actual pole flip?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 6, 2016)

Amazing, we went down 2 miles below sea level to measure the magnetic alignment of the rock 2 miles down....

Yeah, sure...

Rocks on South America are now pointing 90 or so degrees differently than they did 60 million years ago.  That is all about the plate spinning as it moves ON A SPHERE NEAR THE POLE...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Amazing, we went down 2 miles below sea level to measure the magnetic alignment of the rock 2 miles down....
> 
> Yeah, sure...
> 
> Rocks on South America are now pointing 90 or so degrees differently than they did 60 million years ago.  That is all about the plate spinning as it moves ON A SPHERE NEAR THE POLE...



*Amazing, we went down 2 miles below sea level to measure the magnetic alignment of the rock 2 miles down....*

_
In the 1970's, scientists sailed back and forth across the world’s oceans, measuring the magnetic signatures emanating from the oceanic crust beneath their ships. These surveys revealed a series of invisible magnetic “stripes” of normal and reversed polarity in the sea floor, like that shown in the figure below. The patterns reflect the creation and spreading of oceanic crust along the mid-oceanic ridges. Basalt forming at the ridge crest picks up the existing magnetic polarity. Divergence then moves the swath of fresh crust away from the ridge. As long as the magnetic field remains constant, the polarity “stripe” widens. When the Earth’s magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins._

_Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

NOAA Ocean Explorer: Education - Multimedia Discovery Missions | Lesson 2 - Mid-Ocean Ridges | Seafloor Spreading Activity_


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Amazing, we went down 2 miles below sea level to measure the magnetic alignment of the rock 2 miles down....
> 
> Yeah, sure...
> 
> Rocks on South America are now pointing 90 or so degrees differently than they did 60 million years ago.  That is all about the plate spinning as it moves ON A SPHERE NEAR THE POLE...




When do you think South American spun 90 degrees?






From the Wikipedia article on Pangaea

The forming of supercontinents and their breaking up appears to have been cyclical through Earth's history. There may have been many others before Pangaea. The fourth-last supercontinent, called Columbia or Nuna, appears to have assembled in the period 2.0–1.8 Ga.[15][16] Columbia/Nuna broke up and the next supercontinent, Rodinia, formed from the accretion and assembly of its fragments. Rodinia lasted from about 1.1 billion years ago (Ga) until about 750 million years ago, but its exact configuration and geodynamic history are not nearly as well understood as those of the later supercontinents, Pannotia and Pangaea.

When Rodinia broke up, it split into three pieces: the supercontinent of Proto-Laurasia, the supercontinent of Proto-Gondwana, and the smaller Congo craton. Proto-Laurasia and Proto-Gondwana were separated by the Proto-Tethys Ocean. Next Proto-Laurasia itself split apart to form the continents of Laurentia, Siberia and Baltica. Baltica moved to the east of Laurentia, and Siberia moved northeast of Laurentia. The splitting also created two new oceans, the Iapetus Ocean and Paleoasian Ocean. Most of the above masses coalesced again to form the relatively short-lived supercontinent of Pannotia. This supercontinent included large amounts of land near the poles and, near the equator, only a relatively small strip connecting the polar masses. Pannotia lasted until 540 Ma, near the beginning of theCambrian period and then broke up, giving rise to the continents of Laurentia, Baltica, and the southern supercontinent of Gondwana.

In the Cambrian period, the continent of Laurentia, which would later become North America, sat on the equator, with three bordering oceans: the Panthalassic Ocean to the north and west, the Iapetus Ocean to the south and the Khanty Ocean to the east. In the Earliest Ordovician, around 480 Ma, the microcontinent of Avalonia – a landmass incorporating fragments of what would become eastern Newfoundland, the southern British Isles, and parts of Belgium, northern France, Nova Scotia, New England, Iberia and northwest Africa – broke free from Gondwana and began its journey to Laurentia.[17] Baltica, Laurentia, and Avalonia all came together by the end of the Ordovician to form a minor supercontinent called Euramerica or Laurussia, closing the Iapetus Ocean. The collision also resulted in the formation of the northern Appalachians. Siberia sat near Euramerica, with the Khanty Ocean between the two continents. While all this was happening, Gondwana drifted slowly towards the South Pole. This was the first step of the formation of Pangaea.[18]

The second step in the formation of Pangaea was the collision of Gondwana with Euramerica. By Silurian time, 440 Ma, Baltica had already collided with Laurentia, forming Euramerica. Avalonia had not yet collided with Laurentia, but as Avalonia inched towards Laurentia, the seaway between them, a remnant of the Iapetus Ocean, was slowly shrinking. Meanwhile, southern Europe broke off from Gondwana and began to move towards Euramerica across the newly formed Rheic Ocean. It collided with southern Baltica in the Devonian, though this microcontinent was an underwater plate. The Iapetus Ocean's sister ocean, the Khanty Ocean, shrank as an island arc from Siberia collided with eastern Baltica (now part of Euramerica). Behind this island arc was a new ocean, the Ural Ocean.

By late Silurian time, North and South China split from Gondwana and started to head northward, shrinking the Proto-Tethys Ocean in their path and opening the new Paleo-Tethys Ocean to their south. In the Devonian Period, Gondwana itself headed towards Euramerica, causing the Rheic Ocean to shrink. In the Early Carboniferous, northwest Africa had touched the southeastern coast of Euramerica, creating the southern portion of the Appalachian Mountains, the Meseta Mountains and the Mauritanide Mountains. South America moved northward to southern Euramerica, while the eastern portion of Gondwana (India, Antarctica and Australia) headed toward the South Pole from the equator. North and South China were on independent continents. The Kazakhstania microcontinent had collided with Siberia. (Siberia had been a separate continent for millions of years since the deformation of the supercontinent Pannotia in the Middle Carboniferous.)

Western Kazakhstania collided with Baltica in the Late Carboniferous, closing the Ural Ocean between them and the western Proto-Tethys in them (Uralian orogeny), causing the formation of not only the Ural Mountains but also the supercontinent of Laurasia. This was the last step of the formation of Pangaea. Meanwhile, South America had collided with southern Laurentia, closing the Rheic Ocean and forming the southernmost part of the Appalachians and Ouachita Mountains. By this time, Gondwana was positioned near the South Pole and glaciers were forming in Antarctica, India, Australia, southern Africa and South America. The North China block collided with Siberia by Late Carboniferous time, completely closing the Proto-Tethys Ocean.

By Early Permian time, the Cimmerian plate split from Gondwana and headed towards Laurasia, thus closing the Paleo-Tethys Ocean, but forming a new ocean, the Tethys Ocean, in its southern end. Most of the landmasses were all in one. By the Triassic Period, Pangaea rotated a little and the Cimmerian plate was still travelling across the shrinking Paleo-Tethys, until the Middle Jurassic time. The Paleo-Tethys had closed from west to east, creating the Cimmerian Orogeny. Pangaea, which looked like a _C_, with the new Tethys Ocean inside the _C_, had rifted by the Middle Jurassic, and its deformation is explained below.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 6, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence of magnetic pole reversal on the sea floor cannot be explained by the sea floor rotating.
> ...



What the heck you doing playing city slims non stop and equating that to the world?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 6, 2016)




----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2016)

Once again, LaDipstershit, magnetic reversals get recorded at spreading centers.  Spreading centers do not rotate.  Reversals are not recorded in existing plates.

You are as worthless as worthless can get.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick and only crick knows the precise position of every tectonic plate throughout Earth history.

This is because Crick is a PARROT, and whatever his birdbrain parrots, that is right, because Crick cannot be wrong, because Crick was the BIRDBRAIN who was parroting it.,..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick and only crick knows the precise position of every tectonic plate throughout Earth history.
> 
> This is because Crick is a PARROT, and whatever his birdbrain parrots, that is right, because Crick cannot be wrong, because Crick was the BIRDBRAIN who was parroting it.,..



How often did the Mid-Atlantic Ridge spin over the last million years?
What's the mechanism behind the spin?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick and only crick knows the precise position of every tectonic plate throughout Earth history.
> ...


So you don't think the plates spin? How did the continents rotate? Or don't you think that happened either, even though I gave a video of it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*So you don't think the plates spin?*

Are you familiar with the alternating magnetic stripes measured on the sea floor?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You did say they move  various ways once, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



The Mid-Atlantic Ridge moves?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Seafloor magnetic stripes reconsidered
Helical, look it up

"These observations argue for a mechanism within the Earth's interior that continually generates the geomagnetic field.  It has long been speculated that this mechanism is a convective dynamo operating in the Earth's fluid outer core, which surrounds its solid inner core, both being mainly composed of iron.  The solid inner core is roughly the size of the moon but at the temperature of the surface of the sun.  The convection in the fluid outer core is thought to be driven by both thermal and compositional buoyancy sources at the inner core boundary that are produced as the Earth slowly cools and iron in the iron-rich fluid alloy solidifies onto the inner core giving off latent heat and the light constituent of the alloy.  These buoyancy forces cause fluid to rise and the Coriolis forces, due to the Earth's rotation, cause the fluid flows to be helical. Presumably this fluid motion twists and shears magnetic field, generating new magnetic field to replace that which diffuses away."

D'oh


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Interesting. And?

LaDerpster  thinks the magnetic field does not reverse.
Does it?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Understanding plate motions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Scientists now have a fairly good understanding of how the plates move and how such movements relate to earthquake activity. Most movement occurs along narrow zones between plates where the results of plate-tectonic forces are most evident.

There are four types of plate boundaries:


Divergent boundaries -- where new crust is generated as the plates pull away from each other.
Convergent boundaries -- where crust is destroyed as one plate dives under another.
Transform boundaries -- where crust is neither produced nor destroyed as the plates slide horizontally past each other.
Plate boundary zones -- broad belts in which boundaries are not well defined and the effects of plate interaction are unclear."


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Does it?

Does the mid Atlantic ridge move?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Current science points to yes.

There is certainly more evidence that alternating magnetic stripes on the seafloor are due to field reversal than there is evidence that the magnetic stripes were caused by incredibly rapid plate movement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Which one of those would cause the entire Ridge to rotate 180 degrees in order to cause a stripe to have the opposite magnetic fingerprint as the neighboring stripe?


----------



## Crick (Aug 8, 2016)

Fudge could do that.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Fudge could do that.


you would know fudge wouldn't you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Does the magnetic field reverse?

*Does the mid Atlantic ridge move?*

To back LaDerpster's claim, it has to rotate 180 degrees, to explain alternating magnetic stripes.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 8, 2016)

I never said that.  Continental plates rotate.  South America is Exhibit A.

Plates can also go over and slide by the pole to the "other side," where the magnetic field is reversed.

Regardless, there is no evidence of magnetic field reversal on Earth.  There is evidence of misdiagnosing magnetic fields on rock from lava on plates that rotated or passed the pole...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> I never said that.  Continental plates rotate.  South America is Exhibit A.
> 
> Plates can also go over and slide by the pole to the "other side," where the magnetic field is reversed.
> 
> Regardless, there is no evidence of magnetic field reversal on Earth.  There is evidence of misdiagnosing magnetic fields on rock from lava on plates that rotated or passed the pole...



*Plates can also go over and slide by the pole to the "other side," where the magnetic field is reversed.*

Based on the speed of the spreading from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the magnetic poles flip every couple of hundred thousand years or so.

How would you create the same magnetic evidence with your "incredibly rapid plate movement theory"?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 8, 2016)

You have nothing from the mid Atlantic Ridge - nothing.

Show us the mid Atlantic Ridge data (2 miles down...)


----------



## hauke (Aug 9, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > "Man-made climate change is “not a matter of opinion, but of careful evaluation of data from a vast spectrum of scientific disciplines.”
> ...


Why biologist are capable to determine climate change :

there are species of plants and animals that need certain climatic conditions to survive.

for example the malaria moskito. i think it cannot take freezing.

so when it gets warmer, that means the climate changes, these animals can expand their living space further north or south then before.

biologists are finding these movements, therefore climate is changing.

thus biologist have determined that there is global warming.

i hope i have educated how diffrent Scientist who are not climatologists can help understand climate and its changes.

btw archeologists who find evidence of plant species and animals can help determine past climates in locations


----------



## SSDD (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Dex, basic math.  How many days in 175,000 years?
> 
> Give up?  63,875,000.
> 
> ...



You think that ice doesn't compress?....you are the one who should try thinking crickham.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2016)

hauke said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...








Good gosh.  You people really don't know ANYTHING, do you.  Here you go, endemic malaria was a problem all the way up to Lat. 68N  Finland, Sweden, and Norway all used to suffer from it.  Ireland was a hotbed for it as was the UK.  Truly dude, every time you people make a ridiculous claim like this you only reinforce how ignorant you truly are.


*"Abstract*
*Background*
Endemic northern malaria reached 68°N latitude in Europe during the 19th century, where the summer mean temperature only irregularly exceeded 16°C, the lower limit needed for sporogony of _Plasmodium vivax_. Because of the available historical material and little use of quinine, Finland was suitable for an analysis of endemic malaria and temperature.

*Methods*
Annual malaria death frequencies during 1800–1870 extracted from parish records were analysed against long-term temperature records in Finland, Russia and Sweden. Supporting data from 1750–1799 were used in the interpretation of the results. The life cycle and behaviour of the anopheline mosquitoes were interpreted according to the literature.

Malaria Journal


----------



## hauke (Aug 9, 2016)

i didn talk about malaria specific, i mentioned the malaria moskito.

maybe that is a bad example.

there are animals and plants which need certain climatic conditions.

they cannot live in too cold weather, these species are moving north expanding their habitat.

sorry if im wrong about malaria.

i was refering to reports in tv how plants and animals have moved north in germany by 100km in the last 100 years


----------



## Crick (Aug 9, 2016)

Hauke, you are correct.  Numerous plant and animal species are moving outside their normal ranges in response to rising temperatures. That has disturbed large number of biological cycles and predator-prey relationships. Do not be concerned about Westwall giving you grief.  Nor SSDD, jc456, Crusader Frank, LaDexter or a dozen other deniers here.  They are all fools still fretting about Al Gore and communist conspiracies.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Numerous plant and animal species are moving outside their normal ranges in response to rising temperatures.




This is just pathetic.

We had all this noise a few years ago when trees bloomed here in Nashville in mid March, earlier than normal.  the next year, they didn't bloom until mid April - and the warmers shut up...

Meanwhile, Earth climate data continues to read

1. NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
2. NO WARMING in the OCEANS
3. NO NET ICE MELT
4. NO BREAKOUT in 'cane activity
5. NO RISE in ocean levels
6. NO WARMING on the surface of Antarctica, Siberia, and everywhere else there is not a growing urban area


----------



## jc456 (Aug 9, 2016)

hauke said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


There is nothing that proves that plants or animals haven't adapted to a different climate.  It is of course evolution, correct?  Adaptation is a necessary element in order for species to survive.  All you have is folks seeing something and instead of testing and comparing a plant or animal in x and a plant or animal in y area to see if they are genetically the same, you have a quick conclusion that it must be climate.  This may only mean you actually have nothing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Numerous plant and animal species are moving outside their normal ranges in response to rising temperatures.
> ...



The rapid spinning of the sea floor must be saving us.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Hauke, you are correct.  Numerous plant and animal species are moving outside their normal ranges in response to rising temperatures. That has disturbed large number of biological cycles and predator-prey relationships. Do not be concerned about Westwall giving you grief.  Nor SSDD, jc456, Crusader Frank, LaDexter or a dozen other deniers here.  They are all fools still fretting about Al Gore and communist conspiracies.




Really?    How long does 1deg prolong a Fall? Matter in Winter? These species thrive in a climate with close to 100 deg annual variance.. You really think all these ranges changes can be blamed on "climate change"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> You have nothing from the mid Atlantic Ridge - nothing.
> 
> Show us the mid Atlantic Ridge data (2 miles down...)



_Several winters ago, a team of geophysicists from Missouri flew to the eastern edge of Africa, strapped on bulky backpacks and began walking. They were looking for a set of huge stripes in the Tendaho Graben, a place within the Afar Depression of Ethiopia, where Africa's continental crust is stretching thin and a new ocean will eventually form._

_But the stripes they sought — and eventually found — aren't visible to the naked eye. They're magnetic stripes, similar to the ones lining the ocean floor at __mid-ocean ridges__. David Bridges, a geophysicist from the Missouri University of Science and Technology, and his colleagues sniffed them out using a bit of geological detective work, lots of walking and the hulking magnetometers strapped to their backpacks._

_The Tendaho Graben's magnetic stripes are important because they're the first ones scientists have documented on land, Bridges said. Even more importantly, because these stripes have formed before the area becomes a water-covered basin, they may change the way researchers interpret the __planet's oceans__._

_"The really interesting thing is that some of the oceanic basins may perhaps be a little bit younger than we currently believe," Bridges told OurAmazingPlanet._

*Stripes and flips*

* The underwater relatives of Tendaho's magnetic stripes were first documented in the 1950s by geophysicists who set sail to take thousands of seaboard magnetic readings. The researchers eventually began to see that their readings sketched out distinct sets of stripes running parallel to mid-ocean ridges, and that each stripe's magnetic alignment was the reverse of neighboring stripes.*

_The striped magnetic pattern develops because, as oceanic crust pulls apart, magma rises to the surface at mid-ocean ridges and spills out to create new bands of ocean floor. Ferromagnetic minerals in the hot magma align themselves with the Earth's magnetic field, which __completely reverses its north-to-south polarity__ every now and then, and freeze in that alignment as the magma cools. Later, after the planet's magnetic field flips again, the next stripe of new ocean floor aligns its polarity in the opposite direction._

_"For many ocean basins, the timing of their openings has been based on the appearance of these magnetic stripes," because scientists long believed that the stripes first appeared __when seafloor spreading started__, Bridges said._

Ethiopia's Magnetic Stripes Hold Clues to Ocean Formation

Can you believe it? They discovered this stuff back in the 1950s.

Why haven't you heard of it before?


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Hauke, you are correct.  Numerous plant and animal species are moving outside their normal ranges in response to rising temperatures. That has disturbed large number of biological cycles and predator-prey relationships. Do not be concerned about Westwall giving you grief.  Nor SSDD, jc456, Crusader Frank, LaDexter or a dozen other deniers here.  They are all fools still fretting about Al Gore and communist conspiracies.






Really?  Then providing links to actual empirical observations shouldn't be a problem for you to provide.  Please do so.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 9, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _They're magnetic stripes, *similar to* the ones lining the ocean floor at __mid-ocean ridges__. David Bridges, a geophysicist from the Missouri University of Science and Technology, and his colleagues sniffed them out using a bit of geological detective work, lots of walking and the hulking magnetometers strapped to their backpacks._




I was right.  Nobody went to the bottom of the ocean.

Nobody....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > _They're magnetic stripes, *similar to* the ones lining the ocean floor at __mid-ocean ridges__. David Bridges, a geophysicist from the Missouri University of Science and Technology, and his colleagues sniffed them out using a bit of geological detective work, lots of walking and the hulking magnetometers strapped to their backpacks._
> ...


*
I was right.  Nobody went to the bottom of the ocean.*

We have tools that allow us to make measurements at a distance.

It's like science and stuff.

And if you read the article, they were able to measure the alternating stripes on dry land ya fuckin' moron.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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








Indeed.  It's called "remote sensing" and it is very accurate within certain parameters.  The magnetic stripes actually cross the entire oceanic floor, they are not limited to the mid ocean rifts.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 9, 2016)

So if you didn't go down to the bottom of the ocean and actually measure it, how do you know it switched?

There literally should be a point a certain distance from the fault where it flips.

"should be..."   but you and yours didn't check.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> So if you didn't go down to the bottom of the ocean and actually measure it, how do you know it switched?
> 
> There literally should be a point a certain distance from the fault where it flips.
> 
> "should be..."   but you and yours didn't check.



*So if you didn't go down to the bottom of the ocean and actually measure it, how do you know it switched?*

_The underwater relatives of Tendaho's magnetic stripes were first documented in the 1950s by geophysicists who set sail to take thousands of seaboard magnetic readings. The researchers eventually began to see that their readings sketched out distinct sets of stripes running parallel to mid-ocean ridges, and that each stripe's magnetic alignment was the reverse of neighboring stripes.
_
You see, they can measure through the water, because magnetic fields can be measured through water, without actually diving 2 miles below the surface.
*
There literally should be a point a certain distance from the fault where it flips.*

It flips. Literally. Multiple times. That's how they know the magnetic field of the Earth flips every few hundred thousand years or so, moron.
*
"should be..."  but you and yours didn't check.*

DERP!


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> So if you didn't go down to the bottom of the ocean and actually measure it, how do you know it switched?
> 
> There literally should be a point a certain distance from the fault where it flips.
> 
> "should be..."   but you and yours didn't check.







Dude, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.  There have been tens of thousands of ocean floor core samples taken.  They show the polarity flip.  The remote sensing data clearly shows the magnetic flips.  That the magnetic field of the Earth flipped frequently has been KNOWN for decades.  What is not known is why.


----------



## Crick (Aug 9, 2016)

westwall said:


> Indeed.  It's called "remote sensing" and it is very accurate within certain parameters.  The magnetic stripes actually cross the entire oceanic floor, they are not limited to the mid ocean rifts.



That's because the entire floor was created by the rifts.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed.  It's called "remote sensing" and it is very accurate within certain parameters.  The magnetic stripes actually cross the entire oceanic floor, they are not limited to the mid ocean rifts.
> ...







No shit?  That's how that works????


----------



## Crick (Aug 9, 2016)

You realize Todd is pushing LeDupester's nonsense at you?  Read his post #511.  Todd doesn't need you to explain this to him.



Crick said:


> Hauke, you are correct.  Numerous plant and animal species are moving outside their normal ranges in response to rising temperatures. That has disturbed large number of biological cycles and predator-prey relationships. Do not be concerned about Westwall giving you grief.  Nor SSDD, jc456, Crusader Frank, LaDexter or a dozen other deniers here.  They are all fools still fretting about Al Gore and communist conspiracies.





westwall said:


> Really?  Then providing links to actual empirical observations shouldn't be a problem for you to provide.  Please do so.



IPCC's AR5, Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> You realize Todd is pushing LeDupester's nonsense at you?  Read his post #511.  Todd doesn't need you to explain this to him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Post the part you think backs your claim friend, otherwise you again posted shit


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> You realize Todd is pushing LeDupester's nonsense at you?  Read his post #511.  Todd doesn't need you to explain this to him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








That is an opinion piece.  I asked you to post empirical studies that support your claim.  Please do so.  Do you simply not understand what "empirical" means?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 10, 2016)

westwall said:


> That is an opinion piece.  I asked you to post empirical studies that support your claim.  Please do so.  Do you simply not understand what "empirical" means?



If he understood what empirical means then perhaps he wouldn't be one of the duped...he might grasp that computer model output isn't empirical data and that is all climate science has.


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2016)

Let me get this straight and I'd like to get this on the record.  Do the two of you actually believe there are no empirical data in the IPCC's AR5's WG-I's "The Physical Science Basis"?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> Let me get this straight and I'd like to get this on the record.  Do the two of you actually believe there are no empirical data in the IPCC's AR5's WG-I's "The Physical Science Basis"?


well crick let me say this.  you believe there is.  So why not just copy and paste the material that you believe is empirical data and move on?


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2016)

The board posting limits would not allow me to post one one-hundredth of it.  I am following the board's guidelines that suggest posting links to large quantities of text, graphics or data.  Do you need me to repeat the link or have you, as you've repeatedly claimed, already read the entire thing?  Would you like to get in on this?  Do YOU believe there is no empirical data in "The Physical Science Basis"?

Gives me an idea though...


----------



## westwall (Aug 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> Let me get this straight and I'd like to get this on the record.  Do the two of you actually believe there are no empirical data in the IPCC's AR5's WG-I's "The Physical Science Basis"?









There is nothing empirical in AR5 which supports what you are saying.  If there were, you would have trotted it out in a New York second.


----------



## westwall (Aug 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> The board posting limits would not allow me to post one one-hundredth of it.  I am following the board's guidelines that suggest posting links to large quantities of text, graphics or data.  Do you need me to repeat the link or have, as you've claimed, already read the entire thing?  Would you like to get in on this?  Do YOU believe there is no empirical data in "The Physical Science Basis"?







All you have to do is post a paragraph of what you think is empirical evidence, and then provide a link to that direct piece.  That is fully within the rules as you very well know.  Your constant posting of a link to AR5 is a pathetic attempt to baffle people with BS.


----------



## hauke (Aug 10, 2016)

theres scientific data that theres only 40 million human beings on earth, everyone else is an ape not capable of thought

these monkeys should be exterminated as they procreate like rats and eat like locusts

if you belive that ...


----------



## westwall (Aug 10, 2016)

hauke said:


> theres scientific data that theres only 40 million human beings on earth, everyone else is an ape not capable of thought
> 
> these monkeys should be exterminated as they procreate like rats and eat like locusts









Are you drunk or just stupid?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> The board posting limits would not allow me to post one one-hundredth of it.  I am following the board's guidelines that suggest posting links to large quantities of text, graphics or data.  Do you need me to repeat the link or have you, as you've repeatedly claimed, already read the entire thing?  Would you like to get in on this?  Do YOU believe there is no empirical data in "The Physical Science Basis"?
> 
> Gives me an idea though...


There is no empirical data in AR5.  Feel free to post up what you feel is as I've stated previously.  you don't need to post the entire document, that's just a foolish ploy by you to act like you have some sort of restriction. Fact is, all you have to do is give a section and a cut from that section and dude, I'd be happy to go give it another read.  I am all about being cooperative.  Seems that's far from your play book though.  LOL


----------



## SSDD (Aug 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> Let me get this straight and I'd like to get this on the record.  Do the two of you actually believe there are no empirical data in the IPCC's AR5's WG-I's "The Physical Science Basis"?




Are you really this dishonest crick...or just this stupid?....of course there is some empirical data to be found in AR5 or practically any paper you care to mention on the climate....what I have been asking for, and what you can never provide...because it doesn't exist...is observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.....I have made that perfectly clear all along and even posted a thread, which got this whole discussion started..

In fact, here is a quote from the OP of that thread.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> My question is where is this evidence? I have been asking for decades to see some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real, observable, measurable quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. We are after all talking about the climate...it is observable...it is measurable, it is quantifiable...things that effect it are observable, measurable, and quantifiable, therefore, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate should exist.



So where is it crick?...where is the observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> The board posting limits would not allow me to post one one-hundredth of it.  I am following the board's guidelines that suggest posting links to large quantities of text, graphics or data.  Do you need me to repeat the link or have you, as you've repeatedly claimed, already read the entire thing?  Would you like to get in on this?  Do YOU believe there is no empirical data in "The Physical Science Basis"?
> 
> Gives me an idea though...



I am not asking for reams of data crick...all I am asking for is one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...something that shows the present climate is behaving outside the boundaries of natural variability and is hard evidence that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....and we both know that you can't provide it because it does not exist.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> something that shows the present climate is behaving outside the boundaries of natural variability




Plate tectonics continue to push the Marshall Islands closer to the Pacific Ring of Fire, one inch at a time, which is outside the boundaries of its past movement (ie it keeps moving in one direction)

ASKING "warmers" for RAW DATA is like asking Hillary for her CASTLE GRANDE billing records...


----------



## Crick (Aug 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> The board posting limits would not allow me to post one one-hundredth of it.  I am following the board's guidelines that suggest posting links to large quantities of text, graphics or data.  Do you need me to repeat the link or have you, as you've repeatedly claimed, already read the entire thing?  Would you like to get in on this?  Do YOU believe there is no empirical data in "The Physical Science Basis"?
> [Gives me an idea though...



[_See poll on whether or not "The Physical Science Basis" contains empirical data._]



SSDD said:


> I am not asking for reams of data crick...all I am asking for is one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...something that shows the present climate is behaving outside the boundaries of natural variability and is hard evidence that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....and we both know that you can't provide it because it does not exist.



See www.ipcc.ch.  It is comprehensive and very professionally composed.  It is quite simple to find information on just about any climate topic in which you might be interested and you will probably find more information there than you ever wanted to wade through.  While you're reviewing some of that, you might think about the personal cost you suffer when you choose to lie.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> See www.ipcc.ch.  It is comprehensive and very professionally composed.  It is quite simple to find information on just about any climate topic in which you might be interested and you will probably find more information there than you ever wanted to wade through.  While you're reviewing some of that, you might think about the personal cost you suffer when you choose to lie.



By your own words crick...people who claim that evidence exists and then send you off somewhere hoping that they find something are just talking out of their asses....if it is comprehensive and professionally composed...and it is quite simple to find information in, then you shouldn't have any problem at all plucking out some observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and yet, you don't seem to be able to do it....thousands of pages of comprehensive, VERY professional information in which it is simple to find information on any climate topic and you don't seem to be able to find any on the topic of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

Talk about talking out of your ass....I am laughing in your face crick...do you have any idea how stupid you look.


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2016)

"Laugh while you can, monkey boy"

Buckaroo Banzai and His Adventures in the 8th Dimension

When are you going to vote SID?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> "Laugh while you can, monkey boy"
> 
> Buckaroo Banzai and His Adventures in the 8th Dimension
> 
> When are you going to vote SID?



I have already said that there is empirical evidence there....stating the temperature of the room one is in is empirical data...but that isn't the issue is it crick...your poll is dishonest in that it doesn't actually address the point of the discussion that prompted it...start a poll and ask if there is empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...and see how many yes votes you get...your character is terribly flawed crick...as evidenced by the sort of squirmy equivocation your poll represents.


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

The poll's question is mine to choose.  If you want to discuss something else, start another thread or start another poll.  If you don't want to vote in this one, bugger off.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> The poll's question is mine to choose.  If you want to discuss something else, start another thread or start another poll.  If you don't want to vote in this one, bugger off.




Of course it is crick...our choices reveal our character......and what did you choose?.....squirmy equivocation rather than addressing the actual point which prompted you to post the poll in the first place....rather than ask if AR5 contained observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...you simply ask is there is empirical data there...that was never the issue and you know it....your poll is dishonest with respect to the discussion that prompted it..


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2016)

The poll's question is mine to choose.  If you don't want to answer it, go fuck off.

What is it that prevents YOU from asking such questions if you think they're so important?

And what does this turn of debate have to do with the topic of this thread?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> The poll's question is mine to choose.  If you don't want to answer it, go fuck off.



Of course it is crick...I never said that it wasn't.....the choice was all yours and what did you do with it?...why you chose the route of slimy equivocation....as one would expect from a person of your character.

  What is it that prevents YOU from asking such questions if you think they're so important?[/quote]

I am asking...and you are claiming that the data that answers my questions is there...but you just don't seem to be able to produce it...



Crick said:


> And what does this turn of debate have to do with the topic of this thread?



Just pointing out your fundamental dishonesty to anyone who might not have been paying attention...


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2016)

So, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.  And you admit that I am free to set a poll about any climate-related question I choose to.  And then you add several ad hominem attacks lacking any valid justification.

I think we see who is dishonest here SID.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.  And you admit that I am free to set a poll about any climate-related question I choose to.  And then you add several ad hominem attacks lacking any valid justification.
> 
> I think we see who is dishonest here SID.



Of course crick...you are free as a bird...to be as slimy and equivocating as you care to be...as evidenced by your flawed character, you have taken full advantage of that freedom.


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2016)

You are still wasting everyone's time here SID


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> You are still wasting everyone's time here SID



Sorry guy..you are the waste...I am asking for actual data which supports the claims you are making....that is a more than valid use of time...you on the other hand are making claims that you can't provide data to support...that is nothing more than a waste of time.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The board posting limits would not allow me to post one one-hundredth of it.  I am following the board's guidelines that suggest posting links to large quantities of text, graphics or data.  Do you need me to repeat the link or have you, as you've repeatedly claimed, already read the entire thing?  Would you like to get in on this?  Do YOU believe there is no empirical data in "The Physical Science Basis"?
> ...


and no observed empirical data.  Where is it crick? post up that missing paragraph.  See people of the board, nothing, crickets from the crick. Is that considered reproduction?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> You are still wasting everyone's time here SID


who is everyone?

It seems you have the mirror again.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> The poll's question is mine to choose.  If you want to discuss something else, start another thread or start another poll.  If you don't want to vote in this one, bugger off.


well if it's yours, post the paragraph that substantiates your poll.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The poll's question is mine to choose.  If you want to discuss something else, start another thread or start another poll.  If you don't want to vote in this one, bugger off.
> ...



I guess he thinks no one notices the fact that he keeps claiming that observed, measured, quantified evidence exists in AR5 that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate and doesn't seem to be able to bring any here.


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2016)

I guess you think no one notices that despite the mountains of evidence they can all see in AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1), you keep claiming it contains none.


----------



## esthermoon (Oct 16, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.
> 
> Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.
> 
> ...


I can't believe it....


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2016)

You can't believe what?


----------



## esthermoon (Oct 16, 2016)

I can't believe a scientist could say what Michael Mann said!


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2016)

I hope you don't believe what the deniers would have you believe: that Mann was making a serious suggestion.  He was using hyperbole to make a point: that it no longer requires cutting edge science to SEE the effects of global warming.  Apply Occam's Razor to the question.


----------



## westwall (Oct 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> I guess you think no one notices that despite the mountains of evidence they can all see in AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1), you keep claiming it contains none.









You keep claiming there's a mountain of evidence but there isn't any evidence.  There is loads of opinion in those reports but not one bit of empirical evidence.  Are you mentally challenged or are you too ignorant to know the difference?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> I guess you think no one notices that despite the mountains of evidence they can all see in AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1), you keep claiming it contains none.


How many times must we remind you that *model outputs are not empirical evidence of ANYTHING!
*
The IPCC is drawing conclusions from fantasy land as are you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> I hope you don't believe what the deniers would have you believe: that Mann was making a serious suggestion.  He was using hyperbole to make a point: that it no longer requires cutting edge science to SEE the effects of global warming.  Apply Occam's Razor to the question.


Mann Believes it...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> I guess you think no one notices that despite the mountains of evidence they can all see in AR5 (and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1), you keep claiming it contains none.


It doesn't


----------



## Crick (Oct 17, 2016)

The world's climate scientists, the world's scientists of all other genre and everyone whose slightly above your Dumb-as-Fuck level, disagree.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> The world's climate scientists, the world's scientists of all other genre and everyone whose slightly above your Dumb-as-Fuck level, disagree.


sorry, that isn't evidence, try again.


----------



## Crick (Oct 17, 2016)

You don't even know what evidence is.  It IS evidence - that you're an ignorant fool.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> You don't even know what evidence is.  It IS evidence - that you're an ignorant fool.




Funny you should say that...since every time you have attempted to provide some of that overwhelming body of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in AGW that you believe exists....it hasn't.  You haven't even been close...But hey, feel free to try again...who knows, some day you may luck into something....you know what they say about blind squirrels...


----------



## Crick (Oct 20, 2016)

I have provided you links to mountains of it but you choose to lie about it every single time.  There is so very little point in attempting to have a discussion with a lying asshole such as yourself.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> You don't even know what evidence is.  It IS evidence - that you're an ignorant fool.


well I will speak for all skeptics here and state; it is you that has noooooooooooooooooo idea what the word evidence means.  excuse me while I laugh my ass off.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have provided you links to mountains of it but you choose to lie about it every single time.  There is so very little point in attempting to have a discussion with a lying asshole such as yourself.


or not


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

So there is some point?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> So there is some point?


yes, the point is you haven't posted any observed evidence.  It's been explained by several posters in here.  dude you are king of deflection.  It is the law of libturdness.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

Wrong.  The fact is that you lie through your teeth at every opportunity.


----------

