In this climate with
Antarctic "AC" set at 9 and Arctic "AC" set at 1, that is the distance required and NA and Greenland both proved it for us....
It is likely that distance varies depending on those two "AC" "settings," likely a 0 and 0 setting would require the land to get closer to the pole than 600 miles for a continent specific ice age to start....
THE DATA....
The math on that moron's IQ is obvious.
What causes tectonic plate movement?
On Earth, at the center bottom of the Atlantic Ocean is a tectonic fault that only surfaces on Iceland. It should be pretty clear on the image below. That is a "coming in" fault, a fault that grows, not a "subduction" fault like the PROF where one plate goes under the other. Rewind this Atlantic fault and you get Pangea 130 million years ago. The angle of the fault in the North Atlantic is quite clear. It goes SW to NE, and that has pushed Greenland (and earlier North America) NW, while at the same time pushing Europe SE. That is why Greenland went from completely green to continent specific ice age during the past 2 million years. It also explains why all of Europe's glaciers are melting. Of course, the map below is "flat" and Earth is really a sphere. North America was where Greenland is 30-50 million years ago, which explains the duration of the North American Ice Age. North America in the North was "hollowed out" by the ice age. To check what ice ages are doing to Greenland and AA, search for a SEA LEVEL map for those, and yeah, most of those two beneath the ice are now below sea level. Hudson Bay did not exist 60 million years ago. It was dug out by the ice. But Greenland will not clip the North Pole, it will miss it like NA did and when it gets to its "closest to the Pole" position, it will, on the SAME VECTOR, start moving SW, as NA has done for the past 30 million years.
I
I used to be quite the expert. I did it so much as a young man that, at the age of 17, when I was finally with a woman, I found that while I could stay up, I could not finish. It's called ejaculatory impotence. This lasted for most of my life. And while all of my partners enjoyed it at first, they would come to think that I didn't find them sufficiently attractive to get my rocks off or something similar and it would become a problem. I never found a solution. For the last few years I have not been functional at all. I have had both bladder and prostate cancer and the radiation treatment I received has done severe damage to my urethra, my bladder and my ureters (tubes from your kidneys to your bladder) and so I leak and sex outside of the shower would be quite a mess indeed. Additionally, at one point I was twice given a drug for chemical castration that suppressed the testosterone that apparently leads to prostate cancer. It was supposed to last 3 months per shot but its affects seemed to be much longer lasting and it was only after several years that I became even partially functional.
Sounds like radiation treatment for cancer, which is what it was.
It tickles me to see you and your friends here arguing with EMH.
With climate it is a cycle. It hot and then it gets cold and the loop continues. Some years it colder or hotter than previous years. The question is what does man contribute to this cycle. Obvious 400,000 years ago man was just developing as the planet was able to support life as we know it. Prior to that there was no man. Man and technology develops that affects the environment. Green house gases heat up the planet. That is the science. Greenhouse gases have been around for ages and thus it does provide warming to the planet. If man is doing things that are not related to the natural development of the planet then yes man and his activities are affecting the planet.
Just an fyi. Homo Sapiens appeared about 200,000 years ago. All the earlier hominids go back over 2 million but modern man is not that old.
I argue with all who are wrong. Difference between demofks and conservatives. We will call each other out. You demofks always agree with each other, even when you know it’s wrong
It would seem to me that if we want to be reality oriented we'd have to conclude that there may or may not be AGW but nothing has been proven. It's all conjecture. Sure, lots of folks point to the surveys that show 110% of the world's scientists all agree w/ AGW but that too is not how we investigate an issue scientifically.
What is your proof that man DOES NOT impact climate change.
