Map Makers Show Greenland Sections As Ice Free To Please AGW Advocates

In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Seriously? Sorry but I'm not as stupid as you - I already knew the color of a country in an atlas has little to do with its geography.
 
In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Seriously? Sorry but I'm not as stupid as you - I already knew the color of a country in an atlas has little to do with its geography.

LOL really? So then you don't understand all the shades of browns and such? :lol:

Hint: they signify geography, topography to be exact... Kornhole get a new sock this ones dumber than you usually are...:lol::lol:
 
In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Seriously? Sorry but I'm not as stupid as you - I already knew the color of a country in an atlas has little to do with its geography.

LOL really? So then you don't understand all the shades of browns and such? :lol:

Hint: they signify geography, topography to be exact... Kornhole get a new sock this ones dumber than you usually are...:lol::lol:


Unless the map indicates the color has meaning - the color has no meaning.


This is grade school shit. Come on moron.
 
Well now, that is correct. The absorped IR is re-radiated, but about 1/2 of that is now radiated back to the earth. That 1/2 would have otherwise been radiated out into space and lost. So we have an increase in the heat budget of the earth. Which is exactly what the data shows.

Sorry, Bent, ol' fraud, I find that the research of thousands of real physicists far more convincing than the politically driven meanderings of an internet poster.

Which vectors of the earth's EM field allow energy transfer in two directions? Which vectors in an EM field don't require subtraction when met with EM fields in opposing vectors in order to determine the direction of energy flow?

It will always come back to basic science rocks and that is where climate pseudoscience simply falls apart. The whole scam is built upon faulty science.

LOL. Bent, you are such a dumb fuck!

One of the tools I have for prospecting is a UV lamp. When I use this to make a mineral flourese, I can see that resulting light from below, above, and all four sides. This is precisely the same effect of the IR radiation from the GHG molecules. Now you are trying to tell me that your EM fields allows this in UV and visible light and not in IR? Lordy, lordy.
 

Another dumb ass flap yapper. Ocean acidification is still increasing, here is NOAA's information and graphs on it.

Ocean Acidification
Oh, hell they surely don't care. I'm thinking that they all agree with the skookerbil:eek: That is the reality of it. They don't care that it was the maker of the map that screwed up; not the scientist, which are the people that watch the greenland ice sheets and are the ones pointing out the error. I wish there was some honesty instead of constant attempts to score a hit on people.

But for us people that enjoy looking at our planet and what it does here.
hitimeseries2.jpg



But ol' Kooky has one thing going for him. He frames it as purely political, and doesn't even bother to lie about the science.

Douchebag, current studies have shown that there is a saturation limit in the oceans. That means as the oceans increase their CO2, the absorption rates of the oceans drop. Meaning that the more CO2 in the air will only be absorbed so much and so fast by the oceans and that is way before they become acidic.

AS I recall that was from one of yours or your alter-egos threads here... SO were your scientists wrong then or wrong now? The contention of those scientists was that oceans will eventually stop absorbing CO2 leaving it in the atmosphere making it even worse for the warming climate.

You doomsayers can't even remember all of your own fear mongering..:lol:

Well, yes. There is a saturation limit. It is temperature dependent, the lower the temperature, the higher the limit. However, before you break out the champagne, by the time we get to that limit, the acidic effects will be seriously damaging a great many of the single celled organisms at the bottom of the food chain. And there is a second effect. You reach that limit, raise the temperature of the water a bit, and the oceans cease to be a sink, and become a source. Thereby very rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not a winning situation.
 
Seriously? Sorry but I'm not as stupid as you - I already knew the color of a country in an atlas has little to do with its geography.

LOL really? So then you don't understand all the shades of browns and such? :lol:

Hint: they signify geography, topography to be exact... Kornhole get a new sock this ones dumber than you usually are...:lol::lol:


Unless the map indicates the color has meaning - the color has no meaning.


This is grade school shit. Come on moron.

Kornhole if you really think that the colors on an atlas mean nothing then you are epically stupid. They signify topography as in the surface depths, heights, and terrain. If you are so ignorant you didn't know this bit of common knowledge than perhaps home schooling isn't for you...:lol:
 
Another dumb ass flap yapper. Ocean acidification is still increasing, here is NOAA's information and graphs on it.

Ocean Acidification



But ol' Kooky has one thing going for him. He frames it as purely political, and doesn't even bother to lie about the science.

Douchebag, current studies have shown that there is a saturation limit in the oceans. That means as the oceans increase their CO2, the absorption rates of the oceans drop. Meaning that the more CO2 in the air will only be absorbed so much and so fast by the oceans and that is way before they become acidic.

AS I recall that was from one of yours or your alter-egos threads here... SO were your scientists wrong then or wrong now? The contention of those scientists was that oceans will eventually stop absorbing CO2 leaving it in the atmosphere making it even worse for the warming climate.

You doomsayers can't even remember all of your own fear mongering..:lol:

Well, yes. There is a saturation limit. It is temperature dependent, the lower the temperature, the higher the limit. However, before you break out the champagne, by the time we get to that limit, the acidic effects will be seriously damaging a great many of the single celled organisms at the bottom of the food chain. And there is a second effect. You reach that limit, raise the temperature of the water a bit, and the oceans cease to be a sink, and become a source. Thereby very rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not a winning situation.

So basically what you are saying is all the natural safety measures developed on this planet and eco-systems all these years and years will be ineffective suddenly. And exactly how do you know this? You don't, no one does and the fact is you won't accept anything else but we are destroying the planet...

You are a fake. You don't care about science all you care about is AGW theory being right. No matter how, you will support it. Welcome to the world of the zealot. Please don't talk science to me again. You are a pathetic example of a self absorbed wannabe martyr.
 
A question, 1# how much co2 can the oceans absorb before they reach saturation.
2# Once it reaches saturation will the oceans ability to absorb carbon be lessen and would that mean more co2 building up within the Atmosphere?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Unless the map indicates the color has meaning - the color has no meaning.


This is grade school shit. Come on moron.


Here's a hint for you: the white color indicates snow or ice.

Very true,
White=snow fields, ice sheets or glacials
Green=low laying area's
brown or some other shade of such normally=higher areas such as mountains, hills.
blue=water, oceans, ect.
 
A question, 1# how much co2 can the oceans absorb before they reach saturation.
2# Once it reaches saturation will the oceans ability to absorb carbon be lessen and would that mean more co2 building up within the Atmosphere?

Thanks

What difference does it make Matthew? How might CO2 drive the climate? Which physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists?
 
A question, 1# how much co2 can the oceans absorb before they reach saturation.
2# Once it reaches saturation will the oceans ability to absorb carbon be lessen and would that mean more co2 building up within the Atmosphere?

Thanks

Ya know matt I for one am happy to see you have dropped the pretense and gone full on warmer now. Seriously its much better to know what a person really thinks on here..

As of yet I assume they don't have a definite number as it would be related to temps and makeup of the oceans in a given area.

Yes it would mean more building up in the atmosphere and? So far more hasn't meant much in actual warming now has it... Its logarithmic and requires more than a simple assumption that more is more warming.

I ask you how ignorant was it of scientists who knew that CO2 's interaction in the atmosphere was indeed logarithmic, to just assume that it was not that way in the oceans? They just ignore the parts they don't like and go with it?
 
douchebag, current studies have shown that there is a saturation limit in the oceans. That means as the oceans increase their co2, the absorption rates of the oceans drop. Meaning that the more co2 in the air will only be absorbed so much and so fast by the oceans and that is way before they become acidic.

As i recall that was from one of yours or your alter-egos threads here... So were your scientists wrong then or wrong now? The contention of those scientists was that oceans will eventually stop absorbing co2 leaving it in the atmosphere making it even worse for the warming climate.

You doomsayers can't even remember all of your own fear mongering..:lol:

well, yes. There is a saturation limit. It is temperature dependent, the lower the temperature, the higher the limit. However, before you break out the champagne, by the time we get to that limit, the acidic effects will be seriously damaging a great many of the single celled organisms at the bottom of the food chain. And there is a second effect. You reach that limit, raise the temperature of the water a bit, and the oceans cease to be a sink, and become a source. Thereby very rapidly increasing the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Not a winning situation.

so basically what you are saying is all the natural safety measures developed on this planet and eco-systems all these years and years will be ineffective suddenly. And exactly how do you know this? You don't, no one does and the fact is you won't accept anything else but we are destroying the planet...

You are a fake. You don't care about science all you care about is agw theory being right. No matter how, you will support it. Welcome to the world of the zealot. Please don't talk science to me again. You are a pathetic example of a self absorbed wannabe martyr.

lol
 
well, yes. There is a saturation limit. It is temperature dependent, the lower the temperature, the higher the limit. However, before you break out the champagne, by the time we get to that limit, the acidic effects will be seriously damaging a great many of the single celled organisms at the bottom of the food chain. And there is a second effect. You reach that limit, raise the temperature of the water a bit, and the oceans cease to be a sink, and become a source. Thereby very rapidly increasing the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Not a winning situation.

so basically what you are saying is all the natural safety measures developed on this planet and eco-systems all these years and years will be ineffective suddenly. And exactly how do you know this? You don't, no one does and the fact is you won't accept anything else but we are destroying the planet...

You are a fake. You don't care about science all you care about is agw theory being right. No matter how, you will support it. Welcome to the world of the zealot. Please don't talk science to me again. You are a pathetic example of a self absorbed wannabe martyr.

lol

Yeah I wouldn't have anything to say if i were you either...:lol:
 
so basically what you are saying is all the natural safety measures developed on this planet and eco-systems all these years and years will be ineffective suddenly. And exactly how do you know this? You don't, no one does and the fact is you won't accept anything else but we are destroying the planet...

You are a fake. You don't care about science all you care about is agw theory being right. No matter how, you will support it. Welcome to the world of the zealot. Please don't talk science to me again. You are a pathetic example of a self absorbed wannabe martyr.

lol

Yeah I wouldn't have anything to say if i were you either...

What can anyone say to a brainless troll like you, slackjawedidiot? People only respond to your idiotic drivel out of amusement at your utter ignorance and monumental stupidity so you shouldn't be surprised when people occasionally just choose to laugh at you and your incoherent and very moronic posts. You are a joke! But of course you are far too lacking in any kind of cognitive skills to be able to comprehend how extremely mentally incompetent you actually are. That's why you're soooooo funny.
 
What can anyone say to a brainless troll like you, slackjawedidiot? People only respond to your idiotic drivel out of amusement at your utter ignorance and monumental stupidity so you shouldn't be surprised when people occasionally just choose to laugh at you and your incoherent and very moronic posts. You are a joke! But of course you are far too lacking in any kind of cognitive skills to be able to comprehend how extremely mentally incompetent you actually are. That's why you're soooooo funny.

Speaking of brainless trolls and slackjawedidiots, I am still waiting for you to name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists and show the math to support your claim.

I certainly had no problem stating which laws state that such an effect is not possible and doing the math to prove it. It is looking more likely all the time that you are, in fact, a tragic victim of the Dunning - Kruger effect always spouting about your brilliance when in fact, you are no more than a cut and paste drone who is completely incapable of actually doing the math or making any sort of rational argument on your own.

You cut and past and, in fact, have no idea whether the information you use is correct or not as the entire topic is so far over your head that you don't have a clue.

Prove that you either have a handle on the science or you don't right now thunder. Which physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect, and lets see your math.

I am laughing at you thunder. Laughing real hard.
 
Basic Radiation Calculations

Basic Radiation Calculations
The foundation of any calculation of the greenhouse effect was a description of how radiation and heat move through a slice of the atmosphere. At first this foundation was so shaky that nobody could trust the results. With the coming of digital computers and better data, scientists gradually worked through the intricate technical problems. A rough idea was available by the mid 1960s, and by the late 1970s, the calculations looked solid — for idealized cases. Much remained to be done to account for all the important real-world factors, especially the physics of clouds. (This genre of one-dimensional and two-dimensional models lay between the rudimentary, often qualitative models covered in the essay on Simple Models of Climate and the elaborate three-dimensional General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere.) Warning: this is the most technical of all the essays
 

Yeah I wouldn't have anything to say if i were you either...

What can anyone say to a brainless troll like you, slackjawedidiot? People only respond to your idiotic drivel out of amusement at your utter ignorance and monumental stupidity so you shouldn't be surprised when people occasionally just choose to laugh at you and your incoherent and very moronic posts. You are a joke! But of course you are far too lacking in any kind of cognitive skills to be able to comprehend how extremely mentally incompetent you actually are. That's why you're soooooo funny.

Considering the poster you are describing, that is almost complimentary.:lol:
 

Yeah I wouldn't have anything to say if i were you either...

What can anyone say to a brainless troll like you, slackjawedidiot? People only respond to your idiotic drivel out of amusement at your utter ignorance and monumental stupidity so you shouldn't be surprised when people occasionally just choose to laugh at you and your incoherent and very moronic posts. You are a joke! But of course you are far too lacking in any kind of cognitive skills to be able to comprehend how extremely mentally incompetent you actually are. That's why you're soooooo funny.

And you the man-of-a-thousand internet faces and multiple personality disorder sufferer are a character out of a Batman comic...

So what new identity will we see this week?

you never argue a point you just call everyone dumb and grab a different identity. A true coward and useless individual..
 
Yeah I wouldn't have anything to say if i were you either...

What can anyone say to a brainless troll like you, slackjawedidiot? People only respond to your idiotic drivel out of amusement at your utter ignorance and monumental stupidity so you shouldn't be surprised when people occasionally just choose to laugh at you and your incoherent and very moronic posts. You are a joke! But of course you are far too lacking in any kind of cognitive skills to be able to comprehend how extremely mentally incompetent you actually are. That's why you're soooooo funny.

Considering the poster you are describing, that is almost complimentary.:lol:

At least I post for myself and my beliefs.. We both can't say that can we greenpeace, or should we just call you windy? Fake...:lol:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top