Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...

[Robert W]

Truth and politics are two different things. C'est la vie.

Airplanes and diesel trucks are different too, yet both carry cargo.

 

[braalian]

Nobody with a minimum of a high school education thought the world “all at once freezed up”

 

[jc456]

Nobody with a minimum of a high school education thought the world “all at once freezed up”

or can all at once melt.

 

[EMH]

Nobody with a minimum of a high school education thought the world “all at once freezed up”

That's the whole glacial interglacial bullshit, all to discredit the truth that Greenland froze while North America thawed.

 

[EMH]

The debate over McBullshit (Milankovich) vs North American Ice Age (pre 2012 definition, before homO ended her 2 year silence)

Thread 'How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?'

May 15, 2023

This is where the climate debate is now stuck.

Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today.

Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very "Dennis Quaid" approach to ice ages - they are lightning fast, quick, and agile. They come and go really fast.

Since 2010, Milankovitch has replaced "North American Ice Age" with the claim that the ice on Chicago recently that was 2.5 miles thick was only 75k years old.

Really....

My side, which is...

• EMH
• Replies: 134
• Forum: Environment

• 

 

[Samofvt]

The debate over McBullshit (Milankovich) vs North American Ice Age (pre 2012 definition, before homO ended her 2 year silence)

Thread 'How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?'

May 15, 2023

This is where the climate debate is now stuck.

Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today.

Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very "Dennis Quaid" approach to ice ages - they are lightning fast, quick, and agile. They come and go really fast.

Since 2010, Milankovitch has replaced "North American Ice Age" with the claim that the ice on Chicago recently that was 2.5 miles thick was only 75k years old.

Really....

My side, which is...

• EMH
• Replies: 134
• Forum: Environment

• 

All I know is that there are cycles within cycles. The observational evidence looks like sine waves, indicating rotational mechanics. Most people do not have the mental stamina to look into these matters, which is why they throw shade. One early scientist who theorized about fundamental physics described the ability to investigate theoretical science as "running your mind back and forth across the known issues, evaluating each one in turn, throwing out the ones that don't work or are provably false, and then beginning again, running your mind back and forth across the things that are known and reliable" Or something like that, not an exact quote.

That, and then there may be divine inspiration, of which should be a private discussion.

The CO2 hoax/anthropomorphic climate change issue is a political tool used by people who desire power.

 

[Mushroom]

North America had this for either 75k years or 30-50 million years (the latter is the sane answer)

And that "sane answer" is completely incorrect.

Our current ice age cycles started around 3 million years ago when the equatorial current between the Atlantic and Pacific was cut off by the rise of Central America. That ended the old currents and started a global cooling event. One that has seen at least five major ice ages in the last 2.5 million years as the planet keep alternating between ice ages and interglacials.

And that also matches the fossil records of coral reefs on and off shore in Australia and Florida. As we have found reefs both on land today which were typically formed during the interglacials when sea levels are considerably higher than they are now. As well as deep underwater "dead reefs" that are off shore that would be sitting in shallow water during an ice age.

Geologists have drilled into these and taken samples that have dates that match up with the multiple ice ages in the last 2.5 my.

Your first mistake is in believing there has only been a single "ice age". It's a cycle that has been going on for a couple of million years now. And we know that because we can see peeks of how far some of them have advanced when they extended past the most recent one.

But the biggest problem in trying to actually visualize previous ice ages is simply that the most obvious evidence is no longer there. That is because the next ice age when it comes along simply eliminates all of the evidence with the advance of the next ice sheet. We can only get glimpses in places like Wisconsin and Washington where a lobe of a previous ice sheet extended below the extent of the most recent ice sheet.

Such as the case that puzzled geologists for almost a century when they found evidence of an ice sheet at Spokane. Which was finally explained when it was later understood there were multiple ice ages, not just one.

 

[EMH]

One that has seen at least five major ice ages in the last 2.5 million years as the planet keep alternating between ice ages and interglacials.

OK, you are a parrot of CO2 FRAUD. You do not use the correct definition of ice age. And you fall for "interglacials" which are incredibly easy to disprove.

So tell us, when was the last "interglacial?"

 

[EMH]

And we know that because we can see peeks of how far some of them have advanced when they extended past the most recent one.

What we do know is that Greenland was completely green save mountain tops 2 million years ago, and 2 million years ago there was at least 5 million cubic miles of ice on North America that is no longer there.

Greenland froze while North America thawed at the same time, ruling out CO2 and Sun as suspects, and properly defining ICE AGE for us....

 

[Mushroom]

OK, you are a parrot of CO2 FRAUD. You do not use the correct definition of ice age. And you fall for "interglacials" which are incredibly easy to disprove.

So tell us, when was the last "interglacial?"

No, this has not a damned thing to do with "climate". This is based entirely off of geology.



And I am using the correct usage of ice ages and interglacials as used by geologists. Not the fictional alternate one that you seem to have created in your head.

Want to discuss science, I can discuss science. Want to go off on conspiracy theory nonsense, I have absolutely zero interest.

 

[EMH]

No, this has not a damned thing to do with "climate". This is based entirely off of geology.

YOU WERE ASKED ONE QUESTION.

WHEN WAS THE LAST SO-CALLED "INTERGLACIAL?"

UNTIL YOUR COWARDLY LYING ASS ANSWERS THAT QUESTION, YOU AREN'T HERE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE

WHEN WAS THE LAST "INTERGLACIAL"
WHEN WAS THE LAST "INTERGLACIAL"
WHEN WAS THE LAST "INTERGLACIAL"
WHEN WAS THE LAST "INTERGLACIAL"

 

[EMH]

I am using the correct usage of ice ages and interglacials as used by geologists

As used by CO2 FRAUD, and both are easily refuted by ice cores.

 

[Mushroom]

As used by CO2 FRAUD, and both are easily refuted by ice cores.

Thank you, have a nice day.

 

[EMH]

Thank you, have a nice day.

Screams and runs away when confronted with the question

WHEN WAS THE LAST INTERGLACIAL

because 97% of Earth ice on Antarctica and Greenland grew straight through the bullshit "interglacial" which 100% disproves "interglacials."


Thanks for validating your status as a left wing science invalid.

 

[Unkotare]

YOU WERE ASKED ONE QUESTION.

WHEN WAS THE LAST SO-CALLED "INTERGLACIAL?"

UNTIL YOUR COWARDLY LYING ASS ANSWERS THAT QUESTION, YOU AREN'T HERE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE

WHEN WAS THE LAST "INTERGLACIAL"
WHEN WAS THE LAST "INTERGLACIAL"
WHEN WAS THE LAST "INTERGLACIAL"
WHEN WAS THE LAST "INTERGLACIAL"

 

[EMH]

Your chickenshit ass won't answer it either, because the ice cores refute it, and you have already seen that come and go here over and over.


"interglacials" = 100% pure CO2 FRAUD BULLSHIT

Those who use "interglacials" are either part of CO2 FRAUD or IQ<5 science invalids

 

[Unkotare]

Your chickenshit ass won't answer it either, because the ice cores refute it, and you have already seen that come and go here over and over.


"interglacials" = 100% pure CO2 FRAUD BULLSHIT

Those who use "interglacials" are either part of CO2 FRAUD or IQ<5 science invalids

 

[Mushroom]

I am actually laughing at the absolute nonsensical rants.

Thanks for validating your status as a left wing science invalid.

One moment I was an idiot according to them because I believed "Fox News". Then a moment later I somehow believe "Left Wing Science"?

That is about as funny as a few months ago on the same page I had one guy scream I was a "Liberal Communist", and a few lines down somebody else screamed I was a "Republican Fascist".

This one, all I can do is laugh at. He even makes the most rabid Climate Change fanatic seem almost sane.

 

[EMH]

I am actually laughing at the absolute nonsensical rants.

Science laughs at you, moron. You were asked one question about interglacials and you ran away. Why?

Anyone who claims there has been an "interglacial" in the past 130k years is completely refuted by ice cores from Greenland and AA, 97% of Earth ice.

believed "Fox News". Then a moment later I somehow believe "Left Wing Science"?

If you believe Fox "Faux" News is conservative, your just validated that you are an absolute moron.

This one, all I can do is

chicken out from debate and troll, since to debate is to out yourself as

1. wrong
2. a parroting moron
3. a science invalid