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

this many years ago, Greenland was green and at the same time NA was in an ice age


That is simply my claim and backed up by the facts. Ice ages take time. The top of Northern Canada was where Greenland is about 30-40 million years ago. At that point in time, NA had lots of ice and Greenland had none save mountain tops.

But I do have something new for you - DATA, not PARROTING...

The last Yellowstone eruption was

yellowstone eruption - Google Search

"640,000 years ago"

ash map





Notice the ash doesn't cover INDIANA...

WHY??

Was there ICE on INDIANA 640k years ago, near the start of the Greenland ice age???
 
toddster the idiot said:
Hey, fuckstain, no one here denies that Greenland was green in the past.
I saw a claim that Greenland was green while North America was frozen.

Again...not to f'ing difficult to look up if you could only pull your head out of your ass by a fraction of an inch...in fact he already gave you a link...which you clearly didn't read, but further information isn't that hard to come by....all you need do is look up the pleistocene period...which you clearly aren't smart enough to do so let me do it for you....

Pleistocene Epoch: Facts About the Last Ice Age

Pleistocene - New World Encyclopedia

ATMO336 - Spring 2012

There seems to be pretty good agreement that ice covered most of canada and the northern US at least a mile thick from around 2.8 million years ago till about 14,000 years ago...that would fall within the time frame that the greenland record says that there were forests growing....just chalk the time line conflict up to one more thing that you know that happens not to be true...

It seems pretty clear that most of canada and much of the northern US were covered with ice during the time period that the research seems to show that Greenland was covered with forest....

This is just one more thing which is typical of you and just one more reason I keep you on ignore...you are like a child...never have anything beyond one liners to say because to say more would expose the depth of your ignorance.

There seems to be pretty good agreement that ice covered most of canada and the northern US at least a mile thick from around 2.8 million years ago till about 14,000 years ago..


You think NA was covered by glaciers, continuously, for nearly the last 3 million years? LOL!
 
this many years ago, Greenland was green and at the same time NA was in an ice age


That is simply my claim and backed up by the facts. Ice ages take time. The top of Northern Canada was where Greenland is about 30-40 million years ago. At that point in time, NA had lots of ice and Greenland had none save mountain tops.

But I do have something new for you - DATA, not PARROTING...

The last Yellowstone eruption was

yellowstone eruption - Google Search

"640,000 years ago"

ash map





Notice the ash doesn't cover INDIANA...

WHY??

Was there ICE on INDIANA 640k years ago, near the start of the Greenland ice age???

That is simply my claim and backed up by the facts.

You're half right.
 
You think NA was covered by glaciers, continuously, for nearly the last 3 million years? LOL!


The warmers try very hard to suggest that ice ages come and go fast, like "Day after Tomorrow" fast. Then there are things like ice cores, which suggest just the opposite.

Greenland has been moving NW for the past 100 million years. It gets colder/receives less sunlight each year because of that. That ice age on Greenland is brand spanking new.
 
this many years ago, Greenland was green and at the same time NA was in an ice age


That is simply my claim and backed up by the facts. Ice ages take time. The top of Northern Canada was where Greenland is about 30-40 million years ago. At that point in time, NA had lots of ice and Greenland had none save mountain tops.

But I do have something new for you - DATA, not PARROTING...

The last Yellowstone eruption was

yellowstone eruption - Google Search

"640,000 years ago"

ash map





Notice the ash doesn't cover INDIANA...

WHY??

Was there ICE on INDIANA 640k years ago, near the start of the Greenland ice age???
640k years ago? Try just 12,000 years ago. Great Lakes were being born then. Leftist doomsdayers were running around back then screaming look at those lakes, the end is near.
 
Try, please try... to understand that Canada was covered under ice for 30-50 million years.

640k is the last Yellowstone eruption, which left a lot of ash on the ground... but some ash landed on ice, so it got washed away... and THAT is the point, that those Indiana glaciers are there 16k years ago, 640k years ago, and longer...
 
You think NA was covered by glaciers, continuously, for nearly the last 3 million years? LOL!


Ice ages start when the tectonic plate moves land within 600 or so miles of an Earth pole. As winters get longer and colder, summers get shorter. At some point, the summer fails to melt the snow accumulation, and then next year's snow STACKS ON TOP OF LAST YEAR's. That is the start of an ice age. Let that stacking continue for 800k years, you get 700k cubic miles of ice on Greenland. Keep it going for 50 million years on a larger land mass and you get 8 million cubic miles of ice on Antarctica. They are the SAME THING. They do THE SAME THING. One is just younger...
 
You think NA was covered by glaciers, continuously, for nearly the last 3 million years? LOL!


The warmers try very hard to suggest that ice ages come and go fast, like "Day after Tomorrow" fast. Then there are things like ice cores, which suggest just the opposite.

Greenland has been moving NW for the past 100 million years. It gets colder/receives less sunlight each year because of that. That ice age on Greenland is brand spanking new.

Post your proof that North America was covered with ice while Greenland was ice free.
Pretty please.
 
OVer and over and over its been done here, and you won't accept it.

Reading all the falsehood filled crap the warmers have now posted about ice ages... this issue needs its own topic.
 
OVer and over and over its been done here, and you won't accept it.

Reading all the falsehood filled crap the warmers have now posted about ice ages... this issue needs its own topic.

No, you have never posted anything to prove your claim. You have claimed things like this.....

The top of Northern Canada was where Greenland is about 30-40 million years ago. At that point in time, NA had lots of ice and Greenland had none save mountain tops.

Try again?
 
OVer and over and over its been done here, and you won't accept it.

Reading all the falsehood filled crap the warmers have now posted about ice ages... this issue needs its own topic.

No, you have never posted anything to prove your claim. You have claimed things like this.....

The top of Northern Canada was where Greenland is about 30-40 million years ago. At that point in time, NA had lots of ice and Greenland had none save mountain tops.

Try again?
data and timelines posted. The material is available, enjoy the read. you get no more. I always knew you couldn't figure out things. more evidence today, you can't marry up two time lines. funny stuff. BTW, ever hear of paper and pencil? how about notepad or word? you can make lines there as well. incompetent must be your middle name.
 
OVer and over and over its been done here, and you won't accept it.

Reading all the falsehood filled crap the warmers have now posted about ice ages... this issue needs its own topic.

No, you have never posted anything to prove your claim. You have claimed things like this.....

The top of Northern Canada was where Greenland is about 30-40 million years ago. At that point in time, NA had lots of ice and Greenland had none save mountain tops.

Try again?
data and timelines posted. The material is available, enjoy the read. you get no more. I always knew you couldn't figure out things. more evidence today, you can't marry up two time lines. funny stuff. BTW, ever hear of paper and pencil? how about notepad or word? you can make lines there as well. incompetent must be your middle name.

Liar.
 
OVer and over and over its been done here, and you won't accept it.

Reading all the falsehood filled crap the warmers have now posted about ice ages... this issue needs its own topic.

No, you have never posted anything to prove your claim. You have claimed things like this.....

The top of Northern Canada was where Greenland is about 30-40 million years ago. At that point in time, NA had lots of ice and Greenland had none save mountain tops.

Try again?
data and timelines posted. The material is available, enjoy the read. you get no more. I always knew you couldn't figure out things. more evidence today, you can't marry up two time lines. funny stuff. BTW, ever hear of paper and pencil? how about notepad or word? you can make lines there as well. incompetent must be your middle name.

Liar.
how?
 
The patriot of Zionism is trying to cling to the "warmer" idea that ice ages come and go quickly, that Greenland's ice sheet rises and shrinks whenever one species is farting too much...

I say it has to do with how close the land is to the nearest Earth pole... and he can't even begin to refute that.
 
The patriot of Zionism is trying to cling to the "warmer" idea that ice ages come and go quickly, that Greenland's ice sheet rises and shrinks whenever one species is farting too much...

I say it has to do with how close the land is to the nearest Earth pole... and he can't even begin to refute that.

Liar.
Keep trying though.
Your failure is amusing.
 
The patriot of Zionism is trying to cling to the "warmer" idea that ice ages come and go quickly, that Greenland's ice sheet rises and shrinks whenever one species is farting too much...

I say it has to do with how close the land is to the nearest Earth pole... and he can't even begin to refute that.

Liar.
Keep trying though.
Your failure is amusing.
failed? how?
 
I don't know that I have ever seen a more lazy bunch of people..."show your source"..."show your source"..."give us a link"...."give us a link"...what the hell is wrong with you people? Are you afraid that if you take 15 seconds to look that you will find out that he is right?...Well guess what...he is...

A quick google of what he is saying verifies it satisfactorily....

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

livescience said:
sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past

Ice-covered Greenland was a conifer forest half-a-million years ago

Oldest Known DNA Found in Greenland Ice Core

DNA Discovery Shows Greenland's Warm Past, Altering Thoughts on Climate Change

DNA discovery reveals Greenland's warm past

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Greenland's lush past.pdf

The above links represent about 5 minutes of looking...get off your dead asses and do something for yourselves once in a while...you sound like a bunch of magpies..."give us a link"..."give us a link"...

So now if a green greenland 450 to 800 thousand years ago presents a problem with what you believe you know...then that's just too f'ing bad, isn't it?....it is tough to argue with the discovery of DNA under 2 KM of ice... One of the articles even states that the data is contrary to what we thought we knew...but then finding out that what we thought we knew wasn't true at all isn't unusual is it?...isn't that what science is all about?....

Only in climate science does the discovery that what we thought we knew isn't true spark such universal outrage and denial...grow up you bunch of pussies.
Really? Asking for the source material of someone's claim is now being lazy? Are you insane or just stupid? Maybe you just don't understand the process of debate. When someone makes a claim, and quotes (or references a source) I would like to know the source so that I can look at the same information they did. If that makes me lazy then I am as lazy as heck.
 
I cannot be a "liar" until you actually attempt a scientific refutation other than name calling...
 
I don't know that I have ever seen a more lazy bunch of people..."show your source"..."show your source"..."give us a link"...."give us a link"...what the hell is wrong with you people? Are you afraid that if you take 15 seconds to look that you will find out that he is right?...Well guess what...he is...

A quick google of what he is saying verifies it satisfactorily....

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

livescience said:
sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | DNA reveals Greenland's lush past

Ice-covered Greenland was a conifer forest half-a-million years ago

Oldest Known DNA Found in Greenland Ice Core

DNA Discovery Shows Greenland's Warm Past, Altering Thoughts on Climate Change

DNA discovery reveals Greenland's warm past

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Greenland's lush past.pdf

The above links represent about 5 minutes of looking...get off your dead asses and do something for yourselves once in a while...you sound like a bunch of magpies..."give us a link"..."give us a link"...

So now if a green greenland 450 to 800 thousand years ago presents a problem with what you believe you know...then that's just too f'ing bad, isn't it?....it is tough to argue with the discovery of DNA under 2 KM of ice... One of the articles even states that the data is contrary to what we thought we knew...but then finding out that what we thought we knew wasn't true at all isn't unusual is it?...isn't that what science is all about?....

Only in climate science does the discovery that what we thought we knew isn't true spark such universal outrage and denial...grow up you bunch of pussies.
Really? Asking for the source material of someone's claim is now being lazy? Are you insane or just stupid? Maybe you just don't understand the process of debate. When someone makes a claim, and quotes (or references a source) I would like to know the source so that I can look at the same information they did. If that makes me lazy then I am as lazy as heck.
it is when the source material was indeed provided and you don't read it. yep that would be you be lazy.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom