A discussion on the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) and its consequences

[Old Rocks]

The earth depends on that big nuclear reactor in the sky. Thousands of years ago northern hemisphere humans celebrated the date that the Sun stopped it's decline and returned to it's place in the sky. Antarctica was once a tropical environment. Shit happens in geological terms. The 20,000 year span from the last Ice Age is a drop in the bucket in geological time but New York was under a 200 foot deep glacier in the last ice age. What happened to the Sun? Is it possible that the geological time for humans is part of a retreat from the second ice age and extreme cold is the norm in geological history? Left wing political activists never have a nice day but they should celebrate every warm day that God gave us without crazy paranoid extortion games.

All that flap yap, and yet to address the changes we are seeing today. You denialists are a hoot.

 

[jc456]

All that flap yap, and yet to address the changes we are seeing today. You denialists are a hoot.

Nothing but nothing! Color me shocked

 

[mamooth]

Hey, one question for you:
why can the sun shine full one day and be 60 degrees and the very next day full sun shine be 10 degrees?

If you want me to tutor you on the basics of weather, I'll require payment up front. I educate those willing to learn for free, but smarmy cult weasels, them I charge.

 

[mamooth]

Dont need to prove it. I have the scientific debate with the authors that drew out those facts. I've posted here about 6 or 8 times.

Suuuuuuuure you have.

Even remember posting it for you before you ignored the science and went back to your childish name calling. Which is what you do here mostly.

And he's off! Look at him go, running from the topic.

Just like you ignore the science and toss a predictable tantrum everytime the science upsets your simplistic views of GW...

The specific topic you're running from here is your "You can't disprove my crazy theory, so you have to accept that it's right!" philosophy of science, which is unique to you. Science finds the best theory that fits the observed data. Yours is a theory, but it's far, far, far from the best theory, being that it essentially invokes magic.

 

[jc456]

If you want me to tutor you on the basics of weather, I'll require payment up front. I educate those willing to learn for free, but smarmy cult weasels, them I charge.

So you can’t answer the ask?

 

[jc456]

Suuuuuuuure you have.


And he's off! Look at him go, running from the topic.


The specific topic you're running from here is your "You can't disprove my crazy theory, so you have to accept that it's right!" philosophy of science, which is unique to you. Science finds the best theory that fits the observed data. Yours is a theory, but it's far, far, far from the best theory, being that it essentially invokes magic.

Never anything. You must be bore

 

[whitehall]

All that flap yap, and yet to address the changes we are seeing today. You denialists are a hoot.

What changes? Earthquakes happen and volcanoes blow up. Galveston Tx. disappeared under a wall of water about 125 years ago. The earth was shifted on it's axis after the gigantic Fukashima earthquake and radioactive stuff is leaking into the ocean. WW2 dumped thousands of tons of toxic junk in the ocean every day for about four years and it's all percolating from rotting hulks. The U.S. detonated so many Atomic weapons in Nevada in the 50's that it became a tourist attraction. Pristine islands in the Pacific were left uninhabitable from nuclear waste. Chernobl is a hot box of radioactivity thanks to drunken (Ukrainians) Russians. My point is that there is plenty to worry about without banning my Ford F-150 and extorting money from good old Uncle.

 

[flacaltenn]

Suuuuuuuure you have.


And he's off! Look at him go, running from the topic.


The specific topic you're running from here is your "You can't disprove my crazy theory, so you have to accept that it's right!" philosophy of science, which is unique to you. Science finds the best theory that fits the observed data. Yours is a theory, but it's far, far, far from the best theory, being that it essentially invokes magic.

Start a thread proving that the Hockey Sticks have adequate special/temporal resolution resolution to make those absurd claims. I'll do it again.

Right now -- that's not the topic of this thread.

IN FACT -- THIS time -- put it in Clean Debate so that the majority of shit that you toss will be illegal.. I'm up for that Squiddly.

 

[flacaltenn]

Suuuuuuuure you have.

Yes I have. And you were in this thread for instance. If ya want to go toe to toe in Clean Debate -- I suggest you refresh your memory..

How deniers view Global Warming...

Let's just amplify a part of that for any handicapped in the hall.. .......the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, Marcott just decided to slap up an attempt...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yes I have. And you were in this thread for instance. If ya want to go toe to toe in Clean Debate -- I suggest you refresh your memory..

How deniers view Global Warming...

Let's just amplify a part of that for any handicapped in the hall.. .......the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, Marcott just decided to slap up an attempt...

www.usmessageboard.com

I posted several links showing the many easy to prove problems of Marcott et al paper at this POST 68 just last Monday.

His original THESIS paper doesn't show the big uptick.

Here is the admission from Marcott himself:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."



===

Also, at POST 65 showed that Shakun et al paper was long discredited:

The Shakun paper has been exposed as nonsense, in a series of 4 posts here is the last one of the four:

Shakun The Last, I Hope​

"In three previous posts here, here, and here, I discussed problems with the paper by Shakun et al., “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation” (PDF,hereinafter S2012)"

 

[mamooth]

Yes I have. And you were in this thread for instance.

Dang. You've evading for 8 years now. Impressive.

Start a thread proving that the Hockey Sticks have adequate special/temporal resolution resolution to make those absurd claims. I'll do it again.

I've never claimed or implied anything like that. Nobody has. Either your reading comprehension has major problems, or you're just making stuff up.

IN FACT -- THIS time -- put it in Clean Debate so that the majority of shit that you toss will be illegal..

I'd argue that your constant evasions of the point indicates that you're not debating in good faith. Your insult tirades would also be illegal.

The point is not that old proxies lack resolution. Nobody ever argued against that. That's your strawman.

The point is that you're invoking magic, which is not science.

You makes claims of a wildly magically fluctuating past climate, without any evidence for it, other than saying "Well, you can't disprove it, due to the low resolution, therefore we have to assume it's true". That's crap.

Now, please address the actual point. Or just deflect by raging at me.

 

[mamooth]

I posted several links

Once you linked to Climate Fraudit, the laughter drowned out all other conversation.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Dang. You've evading for 8 years now. Impressive.

I've never claimed or implied anything like that. Nobody has. Either your reading comprehension has major problems, or you're just making stuff up.


I'd argue that your constant evasions of the point indicates that you're not debating in good faith. Your insult tirades would also be illegal.

The point is not that old proxies lack resolution. Nobody ever argued against that. That's your strawman.

The point is that you're invoking magic, which is not science.

You makes claims of a wildly magically fluctuating past climate, without any evidence for it, other than saying "Well, you can't disprove it, due to the low resolution, therefore we have to assume it's true". That's crap.

Now, please address the actual point. Or just deflect by raging at me.

My my how easy the lies roll of your forked tongue..... I am going to enjoy the smackdown you are going to get.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Once you linked to Climate Fraudit, the laughter drowned out all other conversation.

Typical empty windbag reply is the best you can offer the links remain unchallenged

Marcott already admitted his uptick isn't worth crap.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd argue that your constant evasions of the point indicates that you're not debating in good faith. Your insult tirades would also be illegal.

Not logical or reasoned. And who's "running away" now -- hmmmm? LOL

Because we'd BOTH have to stick to facts and references and that would put YOU at a severe advantage -- would it not?

Dang. You've evading for 8 years now. Impressive.

Not true. Do a USMB search under my name for the keyword Marcott and you'll find at LEAST 4 times I've brought this up in DIFFERENT threads. MOST of which you trolled in the same manner.

You makes claims of a wildly magically fluctuating past climate, without any evidence for it, other than saying "Well, you can't disprove it, due to the low resolution, therefore we have to assume it's true". That's crap.

I'll explain it again. You're short on reading comprehension I know.

I dont MAKE A CLAIM "of a widely fluctuating past climate" -- that's the troll in you putting words in my mouth that I never said. I SAID -- there is ample evidence of FAR MORE VARIABILITY in SINGLE and LOCAL HIGH RESOLUTION proxies than would EVER show in the completed "world-wide amalgamation of vastly different AND geographically SPARSE proxies that were used in the hockey sticks. So we have GREAT evidence that what Marcott ADMITTED about the time resolution of HIS hockey stick is correct. The MERGING of sparse proxies is what CAUSES the loss of time resolution.

Therefore -- if you want to ATTACK ANYTHING that I've asserted -- its up to you to show Marcott is a liar and that ANY HOCKEYSTICK product is GOOD enough to FIND events shorter than 400 years or a century for ACCURATE measurement.

THEY CANNOT DO THIS. And YOU cannot prove Marcott was lying.

As for the stupid troll move of citing the SOURCE of the Marcott interview. As a TROLL you're not smart enough to check the PRIMARY SOURCE given in the Climate Audit link. I however, not being as good a troll as you DID that. The interview is from SCIENCE MAGAZINE. Which has restricted access because academics need their revenue. AND -- I HAVE THE SOURCE PAPER.. I USE the Climate Audit link so that people CAN see it without paying.

Spoiler Alert -- It's there and NOT A WORD mangled or changed.

We done chicken shit? Or ya want to try this with JUST facts and science in Clean Debate? I'm done wading thru and wasting time with your incessant and incoherent trolling.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dang. You've evading for 8 years now. Impressive.

You lying SonofaBitch cat. Thanks to the anonymous poster who called this one to my attention, seems like we went at this as recent as 2018.. You must really not remember much of your waste of time trolling here.

The American Chemical Society Climate Science Toolkit

I was looking around for a good source of information on various topics related to climate change, and stumbled onto this site. It's probably too technical, but very thorough and interesting. The references page is also helpful if you're looking for academic literature to support various claims...

www.usmessageboard.com

If you had put 1/2 of the hours you spent in 6 or 8 years of trolling and flaming this forum into actually STUDYING the papers and original sources for GW "science" -- you MIGHT be able to actually debate this.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You lying SonofaBitch cat. Thanks to the anonymous poster who called this one to my attention, seems like we went at this as recent as 2018.. You must really not remember much of your waste of time trolling here.

The American Chemical Society Climate Science Toolkit

I was looking around for a good source of information on various topics related to climate change, and stumbled onto this site. It's probably too technical, but very thorough and interesting. The references page is also helpful if you're looking for academic literature to support various claims...

www.usmessageboard.com

If you had put 1/2 of the hours you spent in 6 or 8 years of trolling and flaming this forum into actually STUDYING the papers and original sources for GW "science" -- you MIGHT be able to actually debate this.

You had a long run of with him in 2017 too starting at page 3

Oy!

 

[flacaltenn]

You had a long run of with him in 2017 too starting at page 3

Oy!

Too long a run. And TOO many times. And he STILL insists on putting words in my mouth. Too bad you're not an "anonymous" tipster anymore that shot me that link. LOL

The warmer bible in it's ORIGINAL form is not to be messed with under penalty of heresy. It's all GOT to be just like those screaming headlines of 90s and early 2000s that were WEEKLY if not DAILY. Where are they now? It's not because the science is SETTLED. It's because its hard to find stuff as titillating and fear provoking as in the days when Mammoth could just pull the headline in the NYTimes.

NOW the faithful have to WORK for their validation of faith. Maybe LEARN to read the science journal papers THEMSELVES?? THAT - would be smarter than quoting 30 year old gospel and trolling USMB..

 

[Sunsettommy]

You lying SonofaBitch cat. Thanks to the anonymous poster who called this one to my attention, seems like we went at this as recent as 2018.. You must really not remember much of your waste of time trolling here.

The American Chemical Society Climate Science Toolkit

I was looking around for a good source of information on various topics related to climate change, and stumbled onto this site. It's probably too technical, but very thorough and interesting. The references page is also helpful if you're looking for academic literature to support various claims...

www.usmessageboard.com

If you had put 1/2 of the hours you spent in 6 or 8 years of trolling and flaming this forum into actually STUDYING the papers and original sources for GW "science" -- you MIGHT be able to actually debate this.

He will NEVER debate anything he specialize in putting words your mouth and lie regularly.

That is why he is helping our cause since he NEVER discuss the details of science research thus gets exposed to visitors who see the very poor quality of posting from the warmist/alarmist cabal who pushes pessimistic based nonsense.

They avoid this posts CONTENT because it is well connected to the official data such as NASA satellite data showing a DECREASE in global wildfires since year 2000 it gets rejected with NO explanation over and over.

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?​

This now my "fly paper" post as the warmist/alarmists agonize over the CONTENT to scream in anguish desperately calling the author names and worse they ignore it altogether.

They really hate the first chart because they are busy pedaling the doom and gloom message.

 

[skookerasbil]

Because the rates at which CO2 and sea level are rising or oders of magnitude faster than the previous interglacial cycle.

Not sure so just asking....

So what kind of SUV's were popular during the previous interglacial cycle?