Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
It's the site of an ice core drilling...
|
Face it, chum, you stepped on it, and there's no way you can back out without looking ridiculous.
You're exactly like the 2012 Nutters in every way, shape and form, including the fact that you're wrong.
The first thing you did was scream, "
Denialist blog!", because you didn't see and hear what you wanted to see and hear and you've been tripping over yourself ever since. Would have been better to save face and bow out when you got called on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
... so what?
|
How you claim to know anything about AGW, if you don't even know from where the data comes?
That's like claiming you know everything about sex, except you don't know where babies come from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Are you saying that climatologists focus EXCLUSIVELY on that single data set for EVERYTHING they believe?
That's just flat out wrong.
|
It was good enough for the IPCC.
Someone would have to be incredibly ignorant to not understand that Dome Concordia --- drilled in the 1970s -- was the only data set available to the IPCC and the world for some time.
See?
You just stepped on it, again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
So wait, it's okay that this particular study ONLY uses data from Antarctica and ignore Greenland completely? Of course tree rings, mountaintops, and other glaciers are totally irrelevant.
|
Again, the IPCC does the exact same thing. There are numerous studies that use Antarctic ice cores, and not Greenland, just as there are studies that use Greenland ice cores, and not Antarctica.
Quote:
Ice-Core Evidence Of Rapid Climate Shift During The Termination Of The Little Ice Age
To date, ice-core records of climate from alpine glaciers in the continental United States were considered unsuitable because of the potential for extreme postdepositional changes in the del oxygen-18 ( 18O) values during summer melting cycles. Since 1988, a glaciological research program has been conducted on the glaciers in the Wind River Range of northwestern Wyoming for the purpose of determining the existence of a low-resolution ice-core record of climate that could be linked to other low- and mid-latitude ice-core records. In 1991, a continuous 160 meter (m) ice core was recovered from the Upper Fremont Glacier, altitude 4,000 m, in the Wind River Range, Wyoming, USA. This homepage describes the first successful reconstruction of a low-resolution isotopic record of paleoclimate from a south-central North American ice core. The record provides evidence for abrupt climatic change during the termination of the Little Ice Age (LIA) and establishes a global linkage with 18O series from an ice-core record from the Quelccaya Ice Cap in South America.
|
Source: USGS
ice-core-LIA
Uh-oh.....the USGS must be a right-wing denialst blog since it doesn't use Antarctic ice cores and Greenland ice cores.
It's called "Methodology."
Did you read the methodology for this study?
No, you didn't, so basically, you're clueless about what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Also, did you notice how I didn't include obnoxious laughter in my post?
|
Embarrassed people wouldn't be laughing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Those are lies used to create a tautological argument.
Isn't there a glacier on Greenland?
Oooops....
Do ships have free passage through the Atlantic Northwest?
Oooops....
Is it warmer than the last Inter-Glacial Period?
Nope.
Is it warmer than any of the eight previous Inter-Glacial Periods?
Nope.
AGW Tautology:
1. We want the average global temperature to be 53°F.
2. The average global temperature should be 53°F because we said so.
3. If the average global temperature is greater than 53°F then something is wrong.
4. If something is wrong, Humans are at fault.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
So many lies and weird misconceptions I don't even know where to begin. 
Are you just going to keep throwing out lies and weird references to timeframes in which humans didn't exist? |
You're the one lying, not me.
Is there or isn't there an ice sheet on Greenland?
It's a simple Yes or No question, but you did this....
Avoiding the Question
The fallacy of avoiding the question is a type of fallacy of avoiding the issue that occurs when the issue is how to answer some question. The fallacy occurs when someone’s answer doesn’t really respond to the question asked.
And why?
Because you have no choice except to do this....
Suppressed Evidence
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.
See?
You have to lie.
If you admit that there is an ice sheet on Greenland, then the follow-up is
"How old is the ice sheet on Greenland?"
And that is what frightens you do death.
The Greenland ice sheet is 110,000 years old.
Why?
Because the entire Greenland ice sheet frickin' melted during the last Inter-Glacial Period.
And how is that possible?
Because the average global temperature in the last Inter-Glacial Period is far warmer than it is now.
This graph speaks the Ugly Truth:
When the blue column increase in Degrees Fahrenheit to match the red column, then the average global temperature will be 64.2°F and the Greenland ice sheet will be gone.
Global warming or not, CO2, there is no way you'll ever stop temperatures from increasing naturally to melt the Greenland ice sheet.
So, you had best accept that as a reality, get used to it, and learn how to deal with it.
The ice sheet on Greenland totally melts during every single Inter-Glacial Period, and then reforms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's not what the evidence shows.
When Earth's atmosphere was 95% CO2 -- such as in the period prior to the Great Oxygenation Event --- there were periods of heavy regional glaciation, including at least one known period of global glaciation.
Inexplicably, there is about 1.5 Billion years (post-GOE) with no evidence of glaciation at all, and CO2 levels would have had no impact on that one way or another.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
More bull**** to pad out your other bull****.
You're talking about BILLIONS of years ago as if that somehow provides a great comparison to today?
|
I've been inundated with AGW propaganda since probably before you were born.
You don't remember the hysterical claims of the "run-away greenhouse gas effect" which would cause our skin to melt and the seas to boil off.
The evidence since then ---like the Great Oxygenation Event --- shows that the "run-away effect" is physically impossible.
What kind of "science" continually retracts its claims and fails its predictions?
AGW, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
In before you start your racist chant of "denialist blog," the ESA is the European Space Agency.
I posted that image back in June on another AGW Fantasy Thread.
Here is Earth as of November ...just 5 months later...
Wow....look at the freaking differences.
The Blue areas on the images are areas of low magnetic flux. The Red areas of high flux.
Magnetic flux is measured in nanoTesla or nT.
Blue = 20,000 nT
Orange = 50,000 nT
The Blue areas are where you have the highest level of Ultra-Violet A/B and soft X-Rays.
The Orange and Red areas screen out an higher percentage of the UV-A/B and the soft X-Rays.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
I have no idea how the data you posted bridges to the conclusion you have reached, and I'm pretty sure that it's because it doesn't.
|
English translation:
I don't understand how my World works.
Is there some part of
"Ultra-Violet B, Ultra-Violet A and soft X-rays" that you don't understand?
Magnetic field density, the upper atmosphere (Stratosphere & Mesosphere) and the Ozone Layer shield out Ultra-Violet B, Ultra-Violet A and soft X-rays so that you get only enough to survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
I'm done with this thread...
|
Why, because the original paper isn't really from a right-wing denialist blog?
Drilling...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
