The poor flat earth society, they had a few things to cling to recently, namely the misguided view that Antarctica isn't experiencing any warming, it's all a liberal media generated hoax. Don't expect to see the following link at KKKate's:
A chunk of ice the size of the Isle of Man has started to break away from Antarctica in what scientists say is further evidence of a warming climate.
Satellite images suggest that part of the ice shelf is disintegrating, and will soon crumble away.
David Vaughan, a scientist at the group who in 1993 predicted Wilkins would break apart within 30 years, said today in a telephone interview from Cambridge, England. ``We predicted it would happen, but it's happened twice as fast as we predicted.''
``The importance of it is it's further south than any ice shelf we've seen retreating before, it's bigger than any ice shelf we've seen retreating before"
Back to chasing snowflakes I suppose.
But it's cold outside.....
(yes I'm being ironic)
Who is the scientist being quoted?
Chunks of ice and snow falling off glaciers into the ocean is called calving. People who study galciers say tha calving glaciers are growing glaciers. A shrinking glacier doesn't calf it just melts. So a chunk of ice falling off a glacier could mean the world is getting warmer. More heat in the atmosphere - more evaporation - more snowfall - bigger glaciers. Or it could mean the earth is getting colder. Less melting means more moisture retained as ice. Or it could mean the earth is staying pretty much the same since glaciers have been calving since glaciers were invented.
If it wasn't for people like you, stupid might still be just a theory.
You’re accusing me of being stupid? You're the one who said calving glaciers mean that the temperature of the world is going up. I simply pointed out that ice falling off glaciers can mean what ever you want it to mean.
Reading natural phenomena as omens of things to come belongs in the realm of the old Indian seasonal forecasts of long ago. He would say that the thick hair on the beaver means that winter is going to be cold. Of course it could also mean that he had just caught a very hairy beaver. Once the old Indian was asked if the winter would be cold and he said it would be bitterly cold. Asked how he could be so certain he took his doubter and showed him the size of the White Man’s wood pile.
On a completely different topic, how’s that data from the deep sea buoys coming along? Does it correlate well with the upper troposphere measurements from NASA satellites? Do both of them mesh with land based temperature readings from non-heat island sites? Maybe stupid is trumpeting a theory when all impartial data says that your theory is wrong.
If it wasn't for people like you, stupid might still be just a theory.
Steve V to earth. It is stupid to look at hard data!!!
If that is your definition Steve V then I wear the label with honour.
BTW. If you take a cruise to Alaska you can watch the glaciers calf. People have been doing it for hundreds if not thousands of years now.
"Don't expect to see the following link at KKKate's:"
And where is your link to the fact that the deep sea buoys are showing no sign of our oceans warming up?
Joe asks you some good questions with out insulting you or trying to demean you and all you can answer back is
If it wasn't for people like you, stupid might still be just a theory."
When someone as to use insults instead of debate they have already lost.
I don't debate the moon landing either.
You guys are just a waste of time, why engage? Seriously.
"I don't debate the moon landing either."
Neither would I.
Since you are not willing to post all the evidence against AGW, then you are no different then Kate.
She will only post links that proves her point of view and you will only post links that prove your point of view. Since you both have your own blog I don’t have a problem with the fact that both of you are not willing to look at evidence that contradicts your belief system, but don’t whine about Kate not posting evidence that contradicts her point of view when you will not do the same.
I remember debating global warming in 1989, when I first studied it in university. You stragglers can debate the earth is flat, the serious science has moved beyond you. You're a waste of energy.
"I remember debating global warming in 1989, when I first studied it in university. You stragglers can debate the earth is flat, the serious science has moved beyond you. You're a waste of energy."
I not asking for your resume or your back ground.
Nor do I want to debate the pros and cons of AGW. My point is simply don’t whine about Kate not posting evidence that contradicts her point of view when you will not do the same.
"My point is simply don’t whine about Kate not posting evidence that contradicts her point of view when you will not do the same."
Should I post stuff on creationism too dipshit? You're problem, you think there is a real debate, my argument it's over, so I'm not posting on the propaganda financied by Exxon.
"Should I post stuff on creationism too dipshit? You're problem, you think there is a real debate, my argument it's over, so I'm not posting on the propaganda financied by Exxon."
Then don't whine about Kate not posting evidence that proves AGW when you’re not willing to post evidence that contradicts AGW.
Besides calling each other names here I would like to mention that when I went to university back in the early 70's we studied global cooling. The late 60's was a rather cold time and so all the pointy heads determined that we were heading to global disaster because we were all going to freeze in the dark. Funnily enough it didn't happen.
Now the pendulum has swung the other way and the pointy heads are saying we are all going to roast or drown. Same poop different pile. Let's try to look for evidence. Real hard irrefutable evidence not some ice cube falling in the ocean as proof positive that we are all doomed if we don't stop heating our homes, driving cars and making anything beyond stone tools.
Let's trust in untampered temperature measurements (that's called real science) that (even remotely) indicate that the temperature is a)going up and b) the increase in that temperature is the result of mankind burning a dead tree. All the non-torqued evidence I can find shows a temperature flatline with a slight downward trend despite an increased CO2 levels.
I know it's bad, but I only read about two lines of your post. Something about global cooling... 4 seconds of my life I won't get back. I'm sure it was important, my loss.
Hey Steve, Your take on this Ice Shelf breakup is all wrong. CO2 isn't the Driving force behind it, instead the Wilkins Ice Shelf has a Huge and Active Volcano under it, and that is why the Ice shelf is failing from Underneath, instead of the top melting &/or evaporating away.
Not only that, there was an earthquake nearby on/or about the date of the breakup, and the evidence of this being the main cause of the Breakup is that the Regularity of the Blocks of Ice that resulted from the Harmonic Resonance of the P & S Waves from the earthquake.
Update your info, you look nuttier than Squirrel Poop, my friend.
Post a Comment