Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

[Old Rocks]

LaDerpster feels the last Ice Age ended, 20 thousand years age, because North America finally moved far enough south of the pole. Do you agree with his latest theory?

That is the theory, and it isn't exactly new. I gave it to the Feds in 2009.

Nobody disputes that the NA plate is moving SW and has for millions of years.

The exact details of the NA ice age melt are somewhat unclear. Yellowstone's last eruption was 600k years ago. Clearly, that wiped out some ice, but not all of it. But what is indisputable is that NA was covered with ice age glacier from 50 million years ago until very recently.

You gave it to whom? The Feds? Now what the hell would the Feds do with your Hypothesis? If you actually knew anything at all about science, you would have submitted that hypothesis to someone in the field of geology. Specifically, in the field of glacialogy.

However, your hypothesis is pure bullshit. We have ample evidence of the interglacials, and of the time periods between them. You haven't shown why all the evidence presented by thousands of geologists is wrong. In fact, you have not shown anything at all in support of your nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

You haven't laid a glove on any of my statements or theories.

All you have is parroting from Tippys and some nonsense that you cannot parrot an answer to the question

How old are 2 mile high glaciers?

As soon as you offer some credible evidence that those 2 mile high glaciers in Indiana, which originated in Northern Canada, are younger than a million years old, I will pay attention to you...

Very simple, the Eemian interglacial was 120,000 years ago. North America was warmer during that period than it was 8000 years ago. And North America was free of continental glaciers. So the continental glaciers you claim were in Indiana, are a good deal less than 120,000 years.

European Commission : CORDIS : News and Events : Scientists question Eemian period analogy

Most experts agree that the Eemian period, a warm one that emerged some 125 000 years ago after the Saalian ice age, is a good one to consider for their studies. The planet's average temperatures during the Eemian period were higher than the temperatures we currently have. Even parts of the Greenland ice had melted, and the global sea level was higher than what it is today.

'Therefore, the Eemian time is suited apparently so well as a basis for the topical issue of climate change,' explains Dr Henning Bauch of the Academy of Sciences and Literature Mainz (AdW Mainz) at GEOMAR | Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany.

But in this latest study, Dr Bauch, in cooperation with Dr Evgeniya Kandiano of GEOMAR and Dr Jan Helmke of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, show one important difference between the Eemian period and today's time: the development in the Arctic Ocean.

According to the researchers, in the current warm period, known as the Holocene, oceanic and atmospheric circulation delivers extensive amounts of heat northward into the high latitudes. The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift are key examples. Northern Europe has pleasant temperatures because of the currents, which go as far as the Arctic.

 

[LaDexter]

We have ample evidence of the interglacials,

Truth be told, you have precisely no evidence, other than your ability to parrot colored fudge charts...

 

[LaDexter]

the Eemian interglacial was 120,000 years ago. North America was warmer during that period than it was 8000 years ago.

and you were there, with your satellites, monitoring all of it....

LOL!!!


How old is a 2 mile high glacier??

 

[jc456]

LaDerpster feels the last Ice Age ended, 20 thousand years age, because North America finally moved far enough south of the pole. Do you agree with his latest theory?
I didn't ask ladexter I asked you. you can't answer I see and I see you can't use the internet either. too bad, I guess you just stay uninformed. No surprise though. you're lazy.

Of course the plates move.

which direction?

It varies.

it does? start with NA, which way did it move? hint, I posted a video for review

It does. You think they all move in the same direction? At the same rate?

in the video, which way did NA move, actually spun a little west/ southwest and Greenland move west/ northwest. but most generally the continents moved in a westerly path. Again, from the video it shows sort of rotation. I posted the video for some reference. It's not clear what you mean by it varies. but that isn't unlike you.

Let's see your data about the variances of the plate movement.

 

[LaDexter]

Plates move but also rotate. South America has swung like a soccer player kicking. SA pointed SE 100 million years ago, now points SW.

This rotating also explains the "magnetic pole changes" BS. Those who came up with the claim that the Earth's magnetic field switches poles from time to time assumed the plates did not rotate. They do. There is no Earth magnetic field flopping, just rotating plates that end up facing the other way from which the lava originally cooled...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Plates move but also rotate. South America has swung like a soccer player kicking. SA pointed SE 100 million years ago, now points SW.

This rotating also explains the "magnetic pole changes" BS. Those who came up with the claim that the Earth's magnetic field switches poles from time to time assumed the plates did not rotate. They do. There is no Earth magnetic field flopping, just rotating plates that end up facing the other way from which the lava originally cooled...

Yeah, the sea floor is rotating, back and forth.

Derp!

 

[LaDexter]

Not every plate rotates, but some do. SA is a great example.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not every plate rotates, but some do. SA is a great example.

Evidence of magnetic pole reversal on the sea floor cannot be explained by the sea floor rotating.
So how do you explain it?

 

[jc456]

Not every plate rotates, but some do. SA is a great example.

Evidence of magnetic pole reversal on the sea floor cannot be explained by the sea floor rotating.
So how do you explain it?

so you think there is an actual pole that is magnetic? that is a good DERP.

here some material you can digest:

Earths Magnetic Pole Shifting Accelerates

snippet:

"Scientists have also determined with information from the SWARM satellites, that over the past six months, there has been a marked decrease in the power of the Earth’s magnetic field by up to 15 percent. Some of the many risks involved in a weakening of the Earth’s magnetic fields include climate change, increased solar storms which can cause the electrical grid to collapse, temporary ozone holes and possible increased exposure to radiation leading to an increased rate of cancer in humans.

The shift in acceleration of the Earth’s magnetic poles originates from the planet’s core. Large areas of the Western Hemisphere have seen decreased power in the magnetic field while a large area in the southern Indian Ocean has seen an increase in the field’s power. Scientists will be able to continue analyzing data from the SWARM satellites over the next few months to determine if these findings match up with other signal orientations from the rest of the Earth layers such as the ionosphere, mantle, crust, oceans and magnetosphere."

And will you take a fkn look at that. The Indian Ocean. You supposed they were looking at the water? hahaahahahahahahahahaha

I love your failure of trying to be a smart ass.

 

[LaDexter]

Evidence of magnetic pole reversal on the sea floor cannot be explained by the sea floor rotating.

Sea floor can rotate. It can also push past a pole, which reverses the magnetic field lines as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Evidence of magnetic pole reversal on the sea floor cannot be explained by the sea floor rotating.

Sea floor can rotate. It can also push past a pole, which reverses the magnetic field lines as well.

That's some busy sea floor to fit your theory.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not every plate rotates, but some do. SA is a great example.

Evidence of magnetic pole reversal on the sea floor cannot be explained by the sea floor rotating.
So how do you explain it?

so you think there is an actual pole that is magnetic? that is a good DERP.

here some material you can digest:

Earths Magnetic Pole Shifting Accelerates

snippet:

"Scientists have also determined with information from the SWARM satellites, that over the past six months, there has been a marked decrease in the power of the Earth’s magnetic field by up to 15 percent. Some of the many risks involved in a weakening of the Earth’s magnetic fields include climate change, increased solar storms which can cause the electrical grid to collapse, temporary ozone holes and possible increased exposure to radiation leading to an increased rate of cancer in humans.

The shift in acceleration of the Earth’s magnetic poles originates from the planet’s core. Large areas of the Western Hemisphere have seen decreased power in the magnetic field while a large area in the southern Indian Ocean has seen an increase in the field’s power. Scientists will be able to continue analyzing data from the SWARM satellites over the next few months to determine if these findings match up with other signal orientations from the rest of the Earth layers such as the ionosphere, mantle, crust, oceans and magnetosphere."

And will you take a fkn look at that. The Indian Ocean. You supposed they were looking at the water? hahaahahahahahahahahaha

I love your failure of trying to be a smart ass.

so you think there is an actual pole that is magnetic?

North Magnetic Pole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jc456]

Not every plate rotates, but some do. SA is a great example.

Evidence of magnetic pole reversal on the sea floor cannot be explained by the sea floor rotating.
So how do you explain it?

so you think there is an actual pole that is magnetic? that is a good DERP.

here some material you can digest:

Earths Magnetic Pole Shifting Accelerates

snippet:

"Scientists have also determined with information from the SWARM satellites, that over the past six months, there has been a marked decrease in the power of the Earth’s magnetic field by up to 15 percent. Some of the many risks involved in a weakening of the Earth’s magnetic fields include climate change, increased solar storms which can cause the electrical grid to collapse, temporary ozone holes and possible increased exposure to radiation leading to an increased rate of cancer in humans.

The shift in acceleration of the Earth’s magnetic poles originates from the planet’s core. Large areas of the Western Hemisphere have seen decreased power in the magnetic field while a large area in the southern Indian Ocean has seen an increase in the field’s power. Scientists will be able to continue analyzing data from the SWARM satellites over the next few months to determine if these findings match up with other signal orientations from the rest of the Earth layers such as the ionosphere, mantle, crust, oceans and magnetosphere."

And will you take a fkn look at that. The Indian Ocean. You supposed they were looking at the water? hahaahahahahahahahahaha

I love your failure of trying to be a smart ass.

so you think there is an actual pole that is magnetic?

North Magnetic Pole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why do you suppose it's moving?

 

[LaDexter]

It is all about what is at the center of the Earth... lots and lots of iron, spinning....

 

[Crick]

Mag field reversals are recorded by magma upwelling at spreading centers like the Mid Atlantic Ridge. Spreading centers do not produce rotation. Mag reversals are not recorded in cold tectonic plates moving about.

Man, you are the geology whiz, aren't you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Mag field reversals are recorded by magma upwelling at spreading centers like the Mid Atlantic Ridge. Spreading centers do not produce rotation. Mag reversals are not recorded in cold tectonic plates moving about.

Man, you are the geology whiz, aren't you.

Can you imagine the entire Mid-Atlantic ridge spinning like a top to mimic the actual pole flip?

 

[LaDexter]

Amazing, we went down 2 miles below sea level to measure the magnetic alignment of the rock 2 miles down....

Yeah, sure...

Rocks on South America are now pointing 90 or so degrees differently than they did 60 million years ago. That is all about the plate spinning as it moves ON A SPHERE NEAR THE POLE...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Amazing, we went down 2 miles below sea level to measure the magnetic alignment of the rock 2 miles down....

Yeah, sure...

Rocks on South America are now pointing 90 or so degrees differently than they did 60 million years ago. That is all about the plate spinning as it moves ON A SPHERE NEAR THE POLE...

Amazing, we went down 2 miles below sea level to measure the magnetic alignment of the rock 2 miles down....


In the 1970's, scientists sailed back and forth across the world’s oceans, measuring the magnetic signatures emanating from the oceanic crust beneath their ships. These surveys revealed a series of invisible magnetic “stripes” of normal and reversed polarity in the sea floor, like that shown in the figure below. The patterns reflect the creation and spreading of oceanic crust along the mid-oceanic ridges. Basalt forming at the ridge crest picks up the existing magnetic polarity. Divergence then moves the swath of fresh crust away from the ridge. As long as the magnetic field remains constant, the polarity “stripe” widens. When the Earth’s magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins.

Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

NOAA Ocean Explorer: Education - Multimedia Discovery Missions | Lesson 2 - Mid-Ocean Ridges | Seafloor Spreading Activity

 

[Crick]

Amazing, we went down 2 miles below sea level to measure the magnetic alignment of the rock 2 miles down....

Yeah, sure...

Rocks on South America are now pointing 90 or so degrees differently than they did 60 million years ago. That is all about the plate spinning as it moves ON A SPHERE NEAR THE POLE...

When do you think South American spun 90 degrees?

From the Wikipedia article on Pangaea

The forming of supercontinents and their breaking up appears to have been cyclical through Earth's history. There may have been many others before Pangaea. The fourth-last supercontinent, called Columbia or Nuna, appears to have assembled in the period 2.0–1.8 Ga.[15][16] Columbia/Nuna broke up and the next supercontinent, Rodinia, formed from the accretion and assembly of its fragments. Rodinia lasted from about 1.1 billion years ago (Ga) until about 750 million years ago, but its exact configuration and geodynamic history are not nearly as well understood as those of the later supercontinents, Pannotia and Pangaea.

When Rodinia broke up, it split into three pieces: the supercontinent of Proto-Laurasia, the supercontinent of Proto-Gondwana, and the smaller Congo craton. Proto-Laurasia and Proto-Gondwana were separated by the Proto-Tethys Ocean. Next Proto-Laurasia itself split apart to form the continents of Laurentia, Siberia and Baltica. Baltica moved to the east of Laurentia, and Siberia moved northeast of Laurentia. The splitting also created two new oceans, the Iapetus Ocean and Paleoasian Ocean. Most of the above masses coalesced again to form the relatively short-lived supercontinent of Pannotia. This supercontinent included large amounts of land near the poles and, near the equator, only a relatively small strip connecting the polar masses. Pannotia lasted until 540 Ma, near the beginning of theCambrian period and then broke up, giving rise to the continents of Laurentia, Baltica, and the southern supercontinent of Gondwana.

In the Cambrian period, the continent of Laurentia, which would later become North America, sat on the equator, with three bordering oceans: the Panthalassic Ocean to the north and west, the Iapetus Ocean to the south and the Khanty Ocean to the east. In the Earliest Ordovician, around 480 Ma, the microcontinent of Avalonia – a landmass incorporating fragments of what would become eastern Newfoundland, the southern British Isles, and parts of Belgium, northern France, Nova Scotia, New England, Iberia and northwest Africa – broke free from Gondwana and began its journey to Laurentia.[17] Baltica, Laurentia, and Avalonia all came together by the end of the Ordovician to form a minor supercontinent called Euramerica or Laurussia, closing the Iapetus Ocean. The collision also resulted in the formation of the northern Appalachians. Siberia sat near Euramerica, with the Khanty Ocean between the two continents. While all this was happening, Gondwana drifted slowly towards the South Pole. This was the first step of the formation of Pangaea.[18]

The second step in the formation of Pangaea was the collision of Gondwana with Euramerica. By Silurian time, 440 Ma, Baltica had already collided with Laurentia, forming Euramerica. Avalonia had not yet collided with Laurentia, but as Avalonia inched towards Laurentia, the seaway between them, a remnant of the Iapetus Ocean, was slowly shrinking. Meanwhile, southern Europe broke off from Gondwana and began to move towards Euramerica across the newly formed Rheic Ocean. It collided with southern Baltica in the Devonian, though this microcontinent was an underwater plate. The Iapetus Ocean's sister ocean, the Khanty Ocean, shrank as an island arc from Siberia collided with eastern Baltica (now part of Euramerica). Behind this island arc was a new ocean, the Ural Ocean.

By late Silurian time, North and South China split from Gondwana and started to head northward, shrinking the Proto-Tethys Ocean in their path and opening the new Paleo-Tethys Ocean to their south. In the Devonian Period, Gondwana itself headed towards Euramerica, causing the Rheic Ocean to shrink. In the Early Carboniferous, northwest Africa had touched the southeastern coast of Euramerica, creating the southern portion of the Appalachian Mountains, the Meseta Mountains and the Mauritanide Mountains. South America moved northward to southern Euramerica, while the eastern portion of Gondwana (India, Antarctica and Australia) headed toward the South Pole from the equator. North and South China were on independent continents. The Kazakhstania microcontinent had collided with Siberia. (Siberia had been a separate continent for millions of years since the deformation of the supercontinent Pannotia in the Middle Carboniferous.)

Western Kazakhstania collided with Baltica in the Late Carboniferous, closing the Ural Ocean between them and the western Proto-Tethys in them (Uralian orogeny), causing the formation of not only the Ural Mountains but also the supercontinent of Laurasia. This was the last step of the formation of Pangaea. Meanwhile, South America had collided with southern Laurentia, closing the Rheic Ocean and forming the southernmost part of the Appalachians and Ouachita Mountains. By this time, Gondwana was positioned near the South Pole and glaciers were forming in Antarctica, India, Australia, southern Africa and South America. The North China block collided with Siberia by Late Carboniferous time, completely closing the Proto-Tethys Ocean.

By Early Permian time, the Cimmerian plate split from Gondwana and headed towards Laurasia, thus closing the Paleo-Tethys Ocean, but forming a new ocean, the Tethys Ocean, in its southern end. Most of the landmasses were all in one. By the Triassic Period, Pangaea rotated a little and the Cimmerian plate was still travelling across the shrinking Paleo-Tethys, until the Middle Jurassic time. The Paleo-Tethys had closed from west to east, creating the Cimmerian Orogeny. Pangaea, which looked like a C, with the new Tethys Ocean inside the C, had rifted by the Middle Jurassic, and its deformation is explained below.