Thewaites Glacier, a volcano, and AGW propaganda

[abu afak]

Why Yes, I do have evidence. Strong Evidence.
(Science does not deal in 'proof,' really only math does/can.)

This OP
You were in it but didn't dent it and I doubt wanted to read it so you could maintain your RW stance/Political identity. Which for you is more important than truth.

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...

www.usmessageboard.com

and many individual posts of mine and others throughout.
Much more extensive than your Thwaites ANECDOTAL argument.

`

 

[mamooth]

Yes, explain it in detail, someone said one glacier is melting. I provided a map showing how small that glacier is, how very tiny. I also provided the fact that there is geothermal activity in the area. A volcano at the least.

You showed no evidence that this was causing the new vastly accelerated ice melt, yet all the deniers are at last strong implying that it's the cause. That means the deniers here are all engaging in faith-based wishful thinking again.

I pointed out we have direct evidence of the higher global ocean tempratures, and that we know warmer water melts more ice. that is, AGW theory is backed up by hard evidence.

That's where you went off the rails. Since you've been unable to add anything worthwhile to the discussion, you're reached the point of only being interesting as a psychological study.

 

[mamooth]

Ah, yes, "Ocean Warming", let us look at this un-magnified. Let's look at this at real temperatures so we can get a sense of the trend.

That was some fine "lying by scale manipulation" statistical trickery on your part.

Who did you expect to impress with it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You showed no evidence that this was causing the new vastly accelerated ice melt, yet all the deniers are at last strong implying that it's the cause. That means the deniers here are all engaging in faith-based wishful thinking again.

I pointed out we have direct evidence of the higher global ocean tempratures, and that we know warmer water melts more ice. that is, AGW theory is backed up by hard evidence.

That's where you went off the rails. Since you've been unable to add anything worthwhile to the discussion, you're reached the point of only being interesting as a psychological study.

You showed no evidence that this was causing the new vastly accelerated ice melt,

Vastly accelerated?

I pointed out we have direct evidence of the higher global ocean tempratures

Over what time frame? Over what area? Post those thermometer readings.

 

[elektra]

You showed no evidence that this was causing the new vastly accelerated ice melt, yet all the deniers are at last strong implying that it's the cause. That means the deniers here are all engaging in faith-based wishful thinking again.

I pointed out we have direct evidence of the higher global ocean tempratures, and that we know warmer water melts more ice. that is, AGW theory is backed up by hard evidence.

That's where you went off the rails. Since you've been unable to add anything worthwhile to the discussion, you're reached the point of only being interesting as a psychological study.

You have also, shown no evidence that there is, "new vastly accelerated ice melt". But you have gone out of your way to make it very, very, scary. Moot has stated there has been volcanoes under the Antarctica for millions of years? Hence there has been melting for millions of years.

Higher global ocean temperatures mean nothing if you have no data showing the exact ocean temperatures around thewaites? You are making claims without providing any evidence.

I have shown evidence of what I have stated, maybe you should start with my opening comments and what this OP is about. And, by all means, present the evidence you claim you have. You certainly must do what you demand of others. My evidence is in the first two posts of this OP.

I can go back and requote, and will. But until then, how about that evidence you are making claims about, and what does that evidence if fact, have to do with anything I have based this OP on?

 

[elektra]

Why Yes, I do have evidence. Strong Evidence.
(Science does not deal in 'proof,' really only math does/can.)

This OP
You were in it but didn't dent it and I doubt wanted to read it so you could maintain your RW stance/Political identity. Which for you is more important than truth.

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...

www.usmessageboard.com

and many individual posts of mine and others throughout.
Much more extensive than your Thwaites ANECDOTAL argument.

`

Science does not deal in "proof". I can see how democrats believe that statement for this is no proof that any of the science they believe is close to being true. That science can be AGW, the solution to that problem which is green energy, or the events AGW is supposedly causing like glaciers melting. I am happy that you point out that the, "democrats science does not deal in proof".

What more can I say when you admit you have no proof, no evidence.

 

[abu afak]

Science does not deal in "proof". I can see how democrats believe that statement for this is no proof that any of the science they believe is close to being true. That science can be AGW, the solution to that problem which is green energy, or the events AGW is supposedly causing like glaciers melting. I am happy that you point out that the, "democrats science does not deal in proof".

What more can I say when you admit you have no proof, no evidence.

You're Lying again.
My whole "How do we know" thread, starting with several Superb links explains THE EVIDENCE.
I have also exxplained in my own words several times there on the last few pages.
You have NOT touched it.
Put up or shut up.
You are a RW Hack with zero rebuttal.
Zero.

as to "proof," this Ignorance comes up all the time in the science section arguing against creationists. Your denial cult equivalent.

15 Answer to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - 2002
John Rennie Editor in Chief

[..intro..]​

1. Evolution is 'only' a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.​

​

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​

Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.​

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.​

​

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’”...​

-

Like unproven Evolution, AGW has overwhelming Evidence and support.
You are a Clown with ZERO debate.
Zero.
You're down 50 IQ points and lots of Edu.
And you vacuously refuse to learn: read the reason we KNOW from NASA, Columbia, Yale, etc.
`

 

[abu afak]

Science does not deal in "proof". I can see how democrats believe that statement for this is no proof that any of the science they believe is close to being true. That science can be AGW, the solution to that problem which is green energy, or the events AGW is supposedly causing like glaciers melting. I am happy that you point out that the, "democrats science does not deal in proof".

What more can I say when you admit you have no proof, no evidence.

STILL WAITING .. BOY.

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2021/07/14/heat-waves-and-billion-dollar-extreme-weather-events--are-they-linked-to-greenhouse-gases-and-fossil-energies/?sh=364d2afc68c1 https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate/climate-and-extreme-weather...

www.usmessageboard.com

`

 

[elektra]

You're Lying again.
My whole "How do we know" thread, starting with several Superb links explains THE EVIDENCE.
I have also exxplained in my own words several times there on the last few pages.
You have NOT touched it.
Put up or shut up.
You are a RW Hack with zero rebuttal.
Zero.

as to "proof," this Ignorance comes up all the time in the science section arguing against creationists. Your denial cult equivalent.

15 Answer to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - 2002
John Rennie Editor in Chief

[..intro..]​

1. Evolution is 'only' a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.​

​

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​

Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.​

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.​

​

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’”...​

-

Like unproven Evolution, AGW has overwhelming Evidence and support.
You are a Clown with ZERO debate.
Zero.
You're down 50 IQ points and lots of Edu.
And you vacuously refuse to learn: read the reason we KNOW from NASA, Columbia, Yale, etc.
`

You made a thread that is good, and I failed to respond to? Holy shit egomaniac, how are you able to live without anyone but yourself patting yourself on the back?

The theory of evolution? Are you in the right forum?

 

[elektra]

STILL WAITING .. BOY.

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2021/07/14/heat-waves-and-billion-dollar-extreme-weather-events--are-they-linked-to-greenhouse-gases-and-fossil-energies/?sh=364d2afc68c1 https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate/climate-and-extreme-weather...

www.usmessageboard.com

`

Wait away you lazy dumb fuck, quote from your article and offer comment.

Only the idiots post a link and do not comment or quote from the link.

 

[elektra]

You're Lying again.
My whole "How do we know" thread, starting with several Superb links explains THE EVIDENCE.
I have also exxplained in my own words several times there on the last few pages.
You have NOT touched it.
Put up or shut up.
You are a RW Hack with zero rebuttal.
Zero.

as to "proof," this Ignorance comes up all the time in the science section arguing against creationists. Your denial cult equivalent.

15 Answer to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American - 2002
John Rennie Editor in Chief

[..intro..]​

1. Evolution is 'only' a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.​

​

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​

Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.​

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.​

​

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’”...​

-

Like unproven Evolution, AGW has overwhelming Evidence and support.
You are a Clown with ZERO debate.
Zero.
You're down 50 IQ points and lots of Edu.
And you vacuously refuse to learn: read the reason we KNOW from NASA, Columbia, Yale, etc.
`

I dont see a thread, titled, "how do we know"?

 

[abu afak]

You made a thread that is good, and I failed to respond to? Holy shit egomaniac, how are you able to live without anyone but yourself patting yourself on the back?

The theory of evolution? Are you in the right forum?

It's a huge thread, and tackles head-on THEE main debate here and shows who's right
No wonder you couldn't reply.
You whiffed.
Instead putting up a single Glacier that Might be getting help melting from a volcano.
Really an EXCEPTION/Non-representative.

You are too obtuse to understand that I was using Evo to show some thingas (Science things) don't need to be "Proven" to be true or facts. "proofs" are really only in math.
Language is also not your thing.

`

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, yes, "Ocean Warming", let us look at this un-magnified. Let's look at this at real temperatures so we can get a sense of the trend. View attachment 579449

Now that is one magnificent piece of dumbfuckery. Like an increase in 70 C is a possibility without destroying most life on Earth. Your foolish lies are getting even wilder than normal, Karen Elektra.

 

[Old Rocks]

You showed no evidence that this was causing the new vastly accelerated ice melt,

Vastly accelerated?

I pointed out we have direct evidence of the higher global ocean tempratures

Over what time frame? Over what area? Post those thermometer readings.

That was already posted in Posts #31 and #32.

 

[Old Rocks]

Science does not deal in "proof". I can see how democrats believe that statement for this is no proof that any of the science they believe is close to being true. That science can be AGW, the solution to that problem which is green energy, or the events AGW is supposedly causing like glaciers melting. I am happy that you point out that the, "democrats science does not deal in proof".

What more can I say when you admit you have no proof, no evidence.

More dumbfuckery from an idiot. Democrats? You mean the British and other nationalities are that doing the work on the Thwaites glacier are all Democrats? You just continue to prove you are in competition for the biggest fool on this board. The science concerning climate change is from all nations and nationalities. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we have a scientifically uneducated right wing fruit loop posting nonsense. Oh, who to believe.

 

[elektra]

More dumbfuckery from an idiot. Democrats? You mean the British and other nationalities are that doing the work on the Thwaites glacier are all Democrats? You just continue to prove you are in competition for the biggest fool on this board. The science concerning climate change is from all nations and nationalities. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we have a scientifically uneducated right wing fruit loop posting nonsense. Oh, who to believe.

nothing in that comment is specific to the glacier, it was in response to somebody that said science is not proof, a liberal democrat idiot said that and I agreeed.

So, before you rant old crock, you should consider you are always wrong and always misread things because of your constant anger.

 

[elektra]

That was already posted in Posts #31 and #32.

as you can see old crock, your graph when adjusted to reflect the full spectrum of temperature in the oceans, it does not look so scary as when you take a tiny bit and magnify it 100x's

 

[Old Rocks]

as you can see old crock, your graph when adjusted to reflect the full spectrum of temperature in the oceans, it does not look so scary as when you take a tiny bit and magnify it 100x's

View attachment 579721

Damn, you truly are an idiot! Just where is the temperature of the ocean at 70 C? Have you any idea how hot 70 C is? That is 158 F.

The average temperature of the sea surface is about 20° C (68° F), but it ranges from more than 30° C (86° F) in warm tropical regions to less than 0°C at high latitudes. In most of the ocean, the water becomes colder with increasing depth.Mar 18, 2014.

 

[elektra]

Damn, you truly are an idiot! Just where is the temperature of the ocean at 70 C? Have you any idea how hot 70 C is? That is 158 F.

The average temperature of the sea surface is about 20° C (68° F), but it ranges from more than 30° C (86° F) in warm tropical regions to less than 0°C at high latitudes. In most of the ocean, the water becomes colder with increasing depth.Mar 18, 2014.

Well, thanks for your help, how does this look to you Old Crock, the perspective does not change in my opinion. What do you think.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That was already posted in Posts #31 and #32.

Really? I don't see any temperature readings in either of those posts.