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.
I guess that no one noticed that the earth's temperature is far below the median temperature of earth's real history in the graph I posted... Not politically correct to point out the arrogance and stupidity of the blink-of-an-eye insignificant human existence I guess.
I guess that no one noticed that the earth's temperature is far below the median temperature of earth's real history in the graph I posted... Not politically correct to point out the arrogance and stupidity of the blink-of-an-eye insignificant human existence I guess.
You have all you need to find supporting literature in the message. Goggling Younger Dryas Event gets you 108,000 citations to this geologic/climate event. Goggle will get you the stuff intended for non-specialists like Encyclopaedia Bitannica or Scientific American. If you know how to access The Citation Index you can get the specialist literature from both American and foreign journals from Russia, Europe, Japan and China. You can use this database because "Younger Dryas" is a key word. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of technical/scientific papers exceeds 10,000.
I understand the general attribute made to such claims, however your making a comment that specifically relates to such changes currently as evidence of re-occurrence. For instance, you make the statement that Greenland is currently "rapidly melting" when in fact records show that it is less so now than it has been in recent history. For instance, the warming is currently 50% less than it was in 1920-1930 and there seems to be no evidence to support Arctic amplification as is suggested. In fact the the record does not show any significant up-ticks, rather an absence of down-spikes.
What research do you use to suggest such "rapid melt"?
I wouldn't bother Ferd, she constantly refers to studies by vague relation and if you find what it is she was talking about and link it to discuss the details of the issue, she waves you off with some fallacious response saying she doesn't care about the science.
I wouldn't bother Ferd, she constantly refers to studies by vague relation and if you find what it is she was talking about and link it to discuss the details of the issue, she waves you off with some fallacious response saying she doesn't care about the science.
well, here is the site it came from. There is some unrelated interesting information on geology...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
