NASA: Unprecedented melting of Greenland's ice sheet

[Crick]

PARROTING more warmer BS is not the same as a photo or video of LIQUID WATER on Greenland....

I'm not parroting anything. I posted a study that shows an alternate reason for the melting. Geothermal melt does exist and has nothing to do with co2. Read past the title.

Dude crack me up. You're not parroting you're just posting someone's bad study. That's what parroting is derp

So geothermal melt doesn't exist in your world? Sigh... I guess volcanos are imaginary.

Prove it

Okay

 

[Crick]

Anyone who cannot answer that question understands precisely NOTHING about Earth climate change.

Well... since YOU are the only one on this board who hasn't produced the answer to that asinine question... Our suspicions are confirmed!

You cant answer?

I have, several times now. So have other people. But LaDumpster seems to be fixated on asking a question to which he seems to think that no one but he alone knows the answer. Several people having now provided the correct answer, he finds himself stuck between a rock and a dumb place.

 

[Crick]

So, jc, do you believe in volcanos now?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fact, the Greenland ice sheet has thickened over the last 10,000 years.

Theories aren't facts.

Did you have some "facts" that you wanted to present here? Something pertinent to the issue of Greenland's increasing ice melt?




I have to ask how someone can conclude that Clinton, whose relatively modest wealth is the result of the hard work and dedication of her and her husband should be condemned for it and yet Trump, whose funds are result from an inheritance and a lifelong practice of dodging debts, ripping people off and charging top dollar for shoddy, tasteless crap, is considered praiseworthy?

There are plenty of facts out there. Problem is any time you introduce them someone will be like "I don't like facts from NASA or whoever else so I'm going to ignore them"

Because you can't prove your stuff as fact. It's easy

Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it's not happening, does it?

Also, if you can prove 90% of it, and you have a theory based on science for what is happening, you need to test it out, and see if it works. However you have to remember that you're dealing with things that are so complex, like the sun and other changes that are very hard to predict how they will change.

 

[jc456]

PARROTING more warmer BS is not the same as a photo or video of LIQUID WATER on Greenland....

I'm not parroting anything. I posted a study that shows an alternate reason for the melting. Geothermal melt does exist and has nothing to do with co2. Read past the title.

Dude crack me up. You're not parroting you're just posting someone's bad study. That's what parroting is derp

So geothermal melt doesn't exist in your world? Sigh... I guess volcanos are imaginary.

Prove it

Okay

I agree, your argument is blow'd up!

 

[jc456]

So, jc, do you believe in volcanos now?

What's a volcano got to do with your unproven claims. Blow'd up? Yesssssssss

 

[jc456]

Anyone who cannot answer that question understands precisely NOTHING about Earth climate change.

Well... since YOU are the only one on this board who hasn't produced the answer to that asinine question... Our suspicions are confirmed!

You cant answer?

I have, several times now. So have other people. But LaDumpster seems to be fixated on asking a question to which he seems to think that no one but he alone knows the answer. Several people having now provided the correct answer, he finds himself stuck between a rock and a dumb place.

No, you've never once answered him you fking liar. My gawd man you have no morals you fake!

 

[jc456]

Fact, the Greenland ice sheet has thickened over the last 10,000 years.

Theories aren't facts.

Did you have some "facts" that you wanted to present here? Something pertinent to the issue of Greenland's increasing ice melt?




I have to ask how someone can conclude that Clinton, whose relatively modest wealth is the result of the hard work and dedication of her and her husband should be condemned for it and yet Trump, whose funds are result from an inheritance and a lifelong practice of dodging debts, ripping people off and charging top dollar for shoddy, tasteless crap, is considered praiseworthy?

There are plenty of facts out there. Problem is any time you introduce them someone will be like "I don't like facts from NASA or whoever else so I'm going to ignore them"

Because you can't prove your stuff as fact. It's easy

Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it's not happening, does it?

Also, if you can prove 90% of it, and you have a theory based on science for what is happening, you need to test it out, and see if it works. However you have to remember that you're dealing with things that are so complex, like the sun and other changes that are very hard to predict how they will change.

It doesn't? Why not?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Theories aren't facts.

Did you have some "facts" that you wanted to present here? Something pertinent to the issue of Greenland's increasing ice melt?




I have to ask how someone can conclude that Clinton, whose relatively modest wealth is the result of the hard work and dedication of her and her husband should be condemned for it and yet Trump, whose funds are result from an inheritance and a lifelong practice of dodging debts, ripping people off and charging top dollar for shoddy, tasteless crap, is considered praiseworthy?

There are plenty of facts out there. Problem is any time you introduce them someone will be like "I don't like facts from NASA or whoever else so I'm going to ignore them"

Because you can't prove your stuff as fact. It's easy

Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it's not happening, does it?

Also, if you can prove 90% of it, and you have a theory based on science for what is happening, you need to test it out, and see if it works. However you have to remember that you're dealing with things that are so complex, like the sun and other changes that are very hard to predict how they will change.

It doesn't? Why not?

An alien on some far away planet might be picking his nose.

Just because you can't prove it's happening, does that mean the alien isn't picking its nose?

 

[jc456]

Did you have some "facts" that you wanted to present here? Something pertinent to the issue of Greenland's increasing ice melt?




I have to ask how someone can conclude that Clinton, whose relatively modest wealth is the result of the hard work and dedication of her and her husband should be condemned for it and yet Trump, whose funds are result from an inheritance and a lifelong practice of dodging debts, ripping people off and charging top dollar for shoddy, tasteless crap, is considered praiseworthy?

There are plenty of facts out there. Problem is any time you introduce them someone will be like "I don't like facts from NASA or whoever else so I'm going to ignore them"

Because you can't prove your stuff as fact. It's easy

Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it's not happening, does it?

Also, if you can prove 90% of it, and you have a theory based on science for what is happening, you need to test it out, and see if it works. However you have to remember that you're dealing with things that are so complex, like the sun and other changes that are very hard to predict how they will change.

It doesn't? Why not?

An alien on some far away planet might be picking his nose.

Just because you can't prove it's happening, does that mean the alien isn't picking its nose?

The fact you can't prove it, means you don't know. What's the fking difference fool. You can't prove and I can't , so why should anyone believe you? I don't. The alien may be scratching his balls, who cares, he ain't here telling me to stop what I'm doing. Those arguing CO2 drives climate are. AND I WANT PROOF. It's my right fk.

 

[JBond]

PARROTING more warmer BS is not the same as a photo or video of LIQUID WATER on Greenland....

I'm not parroting anything. I posted a study that shows an alternate reason for the melting. Geothermal melt does exist and has nothing to do with co2. Read past the title.

Dude crack me up. You're not parroting you're just posting someone's bad study. That's what parroting is derp

So geothermal melt doesn't exist in your world? Sigh... I guess volcanos are imaginary.

Prove it

Prove what, that geothermal heating is a real thing? Really? Do you even know what I am talking about? You appear to be confused.

ge·o·ther·mal
ˌjēōˈTHərməl/
adjective
adjective: geothermal; adjective: geothermic

1. of, relating to, or produced by the internal heat of the earth.
   "some 70% of Iceland's energy needs are met from geothermal sources"

 

[jc456]

PARROTING more warmer BS is not the same as a photo or video of LIQUID WATER on Greenland....

I'm not parroting anything. I posted a study that shows an alternate reason for the melting. Geothermal melt does exist and has nothing to do with co2. Read past the title.

Dude crack me up. You're not parroting you're just posting someone's bad study. That's what parroting is derp

So geothermal melt doesn't exist in your world? Sigh... I guess volcanos are imaginary.

Prove it

Prove what, that geothermal heating is a real thing? Really? Do you even know what I am talking about? You appear to be confused.

ge·o·ther·mal
ˌjēōˈTHərməl/
adjective
adjective: geothermal; adjective: geothermic

1. of, relating to, or produced by the internal heat of the earth.
   "some 70% of Iceland's energy needs are met from geothermal sources"

last time I looked iceland was not greenland. I'm just saying.

 

[Crick]

Because you can't prove your stuff as fact. It's easy

Just because you can't prove it's happening, does that mean the alien isn't picking its nose?

JC's problem, I believe, is that if you cannot prove something is NOT happening, and that event would support his previously held beliefs, JC decides that it must BE happening. In all other cases, I think he would see the logic of your statement.

The issue of "proof" in the natural sciences; the difference between evidence and proof, the difference between hypothesis, theory, opinion and fact have been a long running problem in this debate.

 

[jc456]

Because you can't prove your stuff as fact. It's easy

Just because you can't prove it's happening, does that mean the alien isn't picking its nose?

JC's problem, I believe, is that if you cannot prove something is NOT happening, and that event would support his previously held beliefs, JC decides that it must BE happening. In all other cases, I think he would see the logic of your statement.

The issue of "proof" in the natural sciences; the difference between evidence and proof, the difference between hypothesis, theory, opinion and fact have been a long running problem in this debate.

and so far, you're batting a .000 on evidence, fact, theory and hypothesis. at a boy. Keep pluggin away at that errant attempt to show AGW.

 

[SSDD]

What is unprecedented about today's environment is not the absolute values of CO2 levels or temperatures but the RATE at which those variables are changing.

Can you provide a single proxy reconstruction with resolution fine enough to support that claim?...of course you can't...because none exist...like observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the A in AGW...you just make it up as you go crick...and why?..because you are a lying sack of shit.

 

[SSDD]

The amount of land exposed in Greenland and the temperatures the places has experienced say NOTHING about the RATES at which that warming and the consequent melt took place. Greenland could turn into Hawaii for all I care, as long as it takes a million years to do it. And, of course, THAT is what the geological records show us. What is unprecedented about today's environment is not the absolute values of CO2 levels or temperatures but the RATE at which those variables are changing.

What is unprecedented about today's environment is not the absolute values of CO2 levels or temperatures but the RATE at which those variables are changing.

How do you know? What experiment tells you what the absolute values are supposed to be? How do you know these rates aren't normal? dude, it's been the question since day one when I hopped in here. you have presented bumpkiss

Crick just makes up, and says whatever he thinks he thinks will make his point and support his claims...just like climate pseudoscience.

 

[SSDD]

How much more clearly do I have to phrase a point for you to actually understand what I'm saying? Greenland is melting rapidly and that melt is making up a significant portion of the current sea level rise. That Greenland was warm in the past is just as irrelevant as all the other crap you people pull out of archaeologist's asses with your IDIOTIC claims that things can only happen the way they've happened before.

So you think Greenland is melting more rapidly now than it did during the holocene optimum?...how about the minoan, and roman warm periods?...how about during the medieval warm period?...the ice core record from Greenland itself has shown those periods to have been considerably warmer than the present...

 

[SSDD]

How much more clearly do I have to phrase a point for you to actually understand what I'm saying? Greenland is melting rapidly and that melt is making up a significant portion of the current sea level rise. That Greenland was warm in the past is just as irrelevant as all the other crap you people pull out of archaeologist's asses with your IDIOTIC claims that things can only happen the way they've happened before.

Well you can't cause it isn't true.

Again, what rise are you referring to?

He is referring to the rise in fraudulent data manipulation..

 

[Crick]

How much more clearly do I have to phrase a point for you to actually understand what I'm saying? Greenland is melting rapidly and that melt is making up a significant portion of the current sea level rise. That Greenland was warm in the past is just as irrelevant as all the other crap you people pull out of archaeologist's asses with your IDIOTIC claims that things can only happen the way they've happened before.

So you think Greenland is melting more rapidly now than it did during the holocene optimum?...how about the minoan, and roman warm periods?...how about during the medieval warm period?...the ice core record from Greenland itself has shown those periods to have been considerably warmer than the present...

You might want to review my text and stop seeing things that you want to see that are NOT in my post. I did not say that Greenland is melting more rapidly than at any time in the past. I couldn't give two shits about the distant past in this context. It is melting now and its melt rate is currently increasing. That meltwater is making up a significant portion of the ocean's current rise and looks as if it will make up an increasing portion as time goes by. That is a real concern.

 

[jc456]

How much more clearly do I have to phrase a point for you to actually understand what I'm saying? Greenland is melting rapidly and that melt is making up a significant portion of the current sea level rise. That Greenland was warm in the past is just as irrelevant as all the other crap you people pull out of archaeologist's asses with your IDIOTIC claims that things can only happen the way they've happened before.

So you think Greenland is melting more rapidly now than it did during the holocene optimum?...how about the minoan, and roman warm periods?...how about during the medieval warm period?...the ice core record from Greenland itself has shown those periods to have been considerably warmer than the present...

You might want to review my text and stop seeing things that you want to see that are NOT in my post. I did not say that Greenland is melting more rapidly than at any time in the past. I couldn't give two shits about the distant past in this context. It is melting now and its melt rate is currently increasing. That meltwater is making up a significant portion of the ocean's current rise and looks as if it will make up an increasing portion as time goes by. That is a real concern.

dude, I suggest you post up where sea level has risen to back this claim of this pool of water. I've been waiting now for over a year from you. still the everglades has alligators.