Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

[skookerasbil]

AGW people always make BIG news out of insignificant things!!!

That's all the progressives know how to do......like the bogus story in Indiana about the bakery that wont sell to gays. Fucking ghey..........they always take obscure and insignificant things and try to lob a bomb with pronounced levels of hysteria!!!!!


Cant these people ever find anything meaningful in life? I mean really............wtf??.........some thiniing of some ice in Antactica and these people are heading out to build emergency arks!!!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

what is this?

Those are graphs indicating the loss rates of ground ice mass from the worlds four largest ground ice masses.

well if it is, the sea level hasn't risen at all. So?

It has, actually.

You are very ill informed on this topic, it would seem.

Tidal gauges from 1870

LOLz

Yeah. They had rulers back then

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't really get your point.

Are you suggesting that raising temperatures are causing humans to add more CO2 to the air?

No. Raising temperature cause an increase in CO2

Here's a 400,000 year data set and not once did CO2 act as the AGWCult proposed

400,000 years

I'm not talking about the past 400,000 years. I'm talking about the last 150. Are you saying rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

dude, you can't really be that stupid can you? If it is the past 400,000 years, doesn't that include the last 150? I'm just saying, goofy is as goofy does. way to go goofy!!!!

. Are you saying rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

I'm saying a wisp of CO2 has no discernible effect on temperature on planet Earth

Are rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

 

[SSDD]

Are rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

CO2 has been increasing at a steady 2.1ppm or so per year since we started measuring even though mankind's CO2 output has increased 350% since 2002. Explain why mankind's CO2 output which has increased 350% since 2002 remains indistinguishable from the natural rise that has remained essentially the same since we started measuring.

 

[westwall]

It is already too late to do anything. We have already gone off the cliff. Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything. Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it. Human behavior is entirely predictable.

There is no status quo.

If you could point to the last time temperatures rose this quickly I'd love to know about it.

Why you folks won't accept the fact you can;t control nature is beyond me.

That appears to be merely a belief you hold, not backed by evidence or logic.

[/QUOTE]







The Holocene thermal maximum, the Minoan Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming Period...to name a few...

 

[westwall]

No. Raising temperature cause an increase in CO2

Here's a 400,000 year data set and not once did CO2 act as the AGWCult proposed

400,000 years

I'm not talking about the past 400,000 years. I'm talking about the last 150. Are you saying rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

dude, you can't really be that stupid can you? If it is the past 400,000 years, doesn't that include the last 150? I'm just saying, goofy is as goofy does. way to go goofy!!!!

. Are you saying rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

I'm saying a wisp of CO2 has no discernible effect on temperature on planet Earth

Are rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

No. Based on empirical data the most likely reason for the increased CO2 we are experiencing today is due to the Medieval Warming Period of 800 years ago.

 

[jc456]

It ain't my article goof. Try again.

And, try and keep up with the pace.

You quoted the article. Did you not read what you were quoting?

dude, you are really one goofy sob. I quoted to you the first sentence in the article. I had no reason to read on. floating is floating. Until you have some other evidence of something that will really impact the world, perhaps then I'll read, but I'm not wasting my time on mumbo jumbo from the left on here when the opening sentence debunks the post.

BTW, I'm like popeye the sailor man, strong to the finish.

You should read this part:

"A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order."

Do you understand what it is saying yet?

I don't care what that says, that is someones opinion!!!!! Now, until you have something else, you have exhausted your goofiness.

It isn't an opinion, its a matter of fact.

If you don't care what the truth is, why are you even debating?

If I were you, I would find some textbooks that pick up in the year after whatever grade it was you dropped out of elementary school. You can probably find some at your local library.

ah see, I do care about the truth, and the left hasn't presented much in terms of that word on here since I've been on here fifteen months ago. Now, one point I missed a few posts ago by you, was you used the word gravity as an answer to grounded ice. Hmmm, if the ice is already on the ground, are you saying that gravity will be removed and it will float in the air? Sorry, I didn't quite grasp why you choose the word gravity to support the ice that is already on the ground!!!!!! dude, for real you wrote that.

 

[mamooth]

Based on empirical data the most likely reason for the increased CO2 we are experiencing today is due to the Medieval Warming Period of 800 years ago.

I await Westwall's explanation as to why the isotope ratios show the CO2 increase comes from burning fossil fuels and not from natural CO2 releases.

 

[mamooth]

The president just purchased beach front property in Hawaii.

No, he didn't.

jc, did you choose to lie deliberately there, or did you just brainlessly parrot someone else's lie?

Oh, if you care about the truth, you'll let us all know who fed you the lie, and condemn them yourselves. However, if you love your cult more than you love the truth, you'll try to shield the source that fed you the lie.

 

[jc456]

The president just purchased beach front property in Hawaii.

No, he didn't.

jc, did you choose to lie deliberately there, or did you just brainlessly parrot someone else's lie?

yo, yo...from Politic----http://Obamas may be buying Magnum P.I. home in Hawaii - Nick Gass and David Nather - POLITICO

BTW, nice beach front property there.

Edit: provide the experiment hairless or tell the truth you haven't got one.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You quoted the article. Did you not read what you were quoting?

dude, you are really one goofy sob. I quoted to you the first sentence in the article. I had no reason to read on. floating is floating. Until you have some other evidence of something that will really impact the world, perhaps then I'll read, but I'm not wasting my time on mumbo jumbo from the left on here when the opening sentence debunks the post.

BTW, I'm like popeye the sailor man, strong to the finish.

You should read this part:

"A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order."

Do you understand what it is saying yet?

I don't care what that says, that is someones opinion!!!!! Now, until you have something else, you have exhausted your goofiness.

It isn't an opinion, its a matter of fact.

If you don't care what the truth is, why are you even debating?

If I were you, I would find some textbooks that pick up in the year after whatever grade it was you dropped out of elementary school. You can probably find some at your local library.

ah see, I do care about the truth, and the left hasn't presented much in terms of that word on here since I've been on here fifteen months ago. Now, one point I missed a few posts ago by you, was you used the word gravity as an answer to grounded ice. Hmmm, if the ice is already on the ground, are you saying that gravity will be removed and it will float in the air? Sorry, I didn't quite grasp why you choose the word gravity to support the ice that is already on the ground!!!!!! dude, for real you wrote that.

No.

 

[jc456]

dude, you are really one goofy sob. I quoted to you the first sentence in the article. I had no reason to read on. floating is floating. Until you have some other evidence of something that will really impact the world, perhaps then I'll read, but I'm not wasting my time on mumbo jumbo from the left on here when the opening sentence debunks the post.

BTW, I'm like popeye the sailor man, strong to the finish.

You should read this part:

"A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order."

Do you understand what it is saying yet?

I don't care what that says, that is someones opinion!!!!! Now, until you have something else, you have exhausted your goofiness.

It isn't an opinion, its a matter of fact.

If you don't care what the truth is, why are you even debating?

If I were you, I would find some textbooks that pick up in the year after whatever grade it was you dropped out of elementary school. You can probably find some at your local library.

ah see, I do care about the truth, and the left hasn't presented much in terms of that word on here since I've been on here fifteen months ago. Now, one point I missed a few posts ago by you, was you used the word gravity as an answer to grounded ice. Hmmm, if the ice is already on the ground, are you saying that gravity will be removed and it will float in the air? Sorry, I didn't quite grasp why you choose the word gravity to support the ice that is already on the ground!!!!!! dude, for real you wrote that.

No.

sure you did friend, pop open this link. BTW, your link goof job.


Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

Now stop lying and just admit you made another goof!!! Lmfbo

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You should read this part:


Do you understand what it is saying yet?

I don't care what that says, that is someones opinion!!!!! Now, until you have something else, you have exhausted your goofiness.

It isn't an opinion, its a matter of fact.

If you don't care what the truth is, why are you even debating?

If I were you, I would find some textbooks that pick up in the year after whatever grade it was you dropped out of elementary school. You can probably find some at your local library.

ah see, I do care about the truth, and the left hasn't presented much in terms of that word on here since I've been on here fifteen months ago. Now, one point I missed a few posts ago by you, was you used the word gravity as an answer to grounded ice. Hmmm, if the ice is already on the ground, are you saying that gravity will be removed and it will float in the air? Sorry, I didn't quite grasp why you choose the word gravity to support the ice that is already on the ground!!!!!! dude, for real you wrote that.

No.

sure you did friend, pop open this link. BTW, your link goof job.


Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

Now stop lying and just admit you made another goof!!! Lmfbo

I don't believe that you are actually dumb enough to not comprehend that gravity pulls things down. That's simply not possible. You are pulling my chain.

 

[mamooth]

yo, yo...from Politic----http://Obamas may be buying Magnum P.I. home in Hawaii - Nick Gass and David Nather - POLITICO
BTW, nice beach front property there.

So you brainlessly repeated a crazy rumor, got it. A person of normal intelligence would now have gone back and checked out his facts, but that excludes you.

Do you understand I'm having fun toying with you now? Don't worry, everyone else understands. The goal here now is to work you into a lather so that you double down again on your big lie. Please proceed.

 

[westwall]

The president just purchased beach front property in Hawaii.

No, he didn't.

jc, did you choose to lie deliberately there, or did you just brainlessly parrot someone else's lie?

Oh, if you care about the truth, you'll let us all know who fed you the lie, and condemn them yourselves. However, if you love your cult more than you love the truth, you'll try to shield the source that fed you the lie.

Well, the Maldives are supposedly going to be underwater real soon and yet they just spent several hundred million dollars on nice, shiny new airports to bring all the tourists to the islands.



"While Louise Gray was wetting her knickers in the Daily Telegraph at the prospect of handing over billions of our money to compensate low lying island states, and our ludicrous Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, talked about helping “people who are losing their countries below the waves”, the Maldives have been busy getting on with life in the real world.



During the past year, they have been busy building four new airports.

• September saw the opening of the new airport at Kooddoo. The airport was developed by Bonvests Holdings Ltd, a leading property development company from Singapore. Bonvests Holdings owns the The Residence Maldives resort and they are currently developing another resort in Dhigurah island, both resorts are just few minutes from Kooddoo airport.
• In the same month, the new airport at Maamagili was completed. Villa Airport Maamigili is equipped with a full aerodrome comprising of a 1,800 meter long runway equipped with industry standard runway lighting system to facilitate landing and take-off in low visibility and at night.
• Construction finished at the new airport at Dharavandhoo in April, and management was passed over to Island Aviation to sort out the finishing touches.
• At the start of the year, the airport at Fuvahmulah began operations.

Maldives Opening Four New Underwater Airports NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

 

[Staidhup]

Hey Chicken Little the sky is falling run back to your cave. So the earth is undergoing a weather change, too freaking bad, like it has done so for millions upon millions of years, what the F do you think you can do about that? Do you honestly think that if man and technology were to be removed from the face of the earth that it would make a difference? Are you for real?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Folks just love to keep their heads buried in the sand. Eventually, there will be plenty of it for everyone.

IN a word... NO...

Before total ice loss would come the next glacial cycle. We are overdue already..

 

[Billy_Bob]

No. Raising temperature cause an increase in CO2

Here's a 400,000 year data set and not once did CO2 act as the AGWCult proposed

400,000 years

I'm not talking about the past 400,000 years. I'm talking about the last 150. Are you saying rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

dude, you can't really be that stupid can you? If it is the past 400,000 years, doesn't that include the last 150? I'm just saying, goofy is as goofy does. way to go goofy!!!!

. Are you saying rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

I'm saying a wisp of CO2 has no discernible effect on temperature on planet Earth

Are rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

Not according to the IPCC. AR1 clearly stated that all warming pre 1950 was natural variation and man had little to nothing to do with it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let me see if i can do a man tooth skeptical version of thread summary..

1. Alarmists have insufficient data to prove or disprove anything. The claim that the last 35 years and then modeling further in the past proves their point. Do i have to remind these fools that models are not empirical evidence of anything..

2. Alarmists then appeal to their authority, from made up crap they call science, that was Pal Reviewed by only their side, while they keep other works showing their meme a lie from publication. Simply so they can claim they have peer reviewed works that back up their positions.

3. Alarmists will then produce debunked crap from Michale Mann and James Hansen as proof, even though those works have been thoroughly shown falsified.

4. Alarmist will cry "ITS FOR THE CHILDREN" hoping that this will impede cognitive thinking skills and commonsense.. and again appeal to their made up and manufactured authority....


Reading through this thread I have seen every single Alyinsky tactic to remove cognitive thought and commonsense.. They only fool the ignorant..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Based on empirical data the most likely reason for the increased CO2 we are experiencing today is due to the Medieval Warming Period of 800 years ago.

I await Westwall's explanation as to why the isotope ratios show the CO2 increase comes from burning fossil fuels and not from natural CO2 releases.

You are aware that isotopes break down rapidly and their half life's make them almost totally useless for dating beyond 30 years.. Even CO2's atmospheric half life has been greatly exaggerated by the alarmist shills at under 7 years, not the 30-120 years they tout... But man tooth knows this and still posts crap over and over and over again..