Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - F X

Science / Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Science / Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Science / Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
I will admit I haven't really been skeptical about the assumed effect itself.  Now I am starting to wonder if I am wrong.

I would start a topic, but really, nobody cares.
Science / Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
IT is widely understood that the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) would cause a global sea level rise of 6 m, yet there continues to be considerable debate about the detailed response of this ice sheet to climate changel-3. Because its bed is grounded well below sea level, the stability of the WAIS may depend on geologically controlled conditions at the base which are independent of climate.

(11 February 1993)
The specific claim you keep repeating, and have failed to defend is that the Global Sea Level was 3 meters higher than the current level.
Many glaciers in Greenland melted during the HCO, and then reformed as temperatures dropped. source

Which is expected, since global temperatures dropped, along with sea levels.
Hans Tausen Iskappe (Greenland), situated at 82.5°N, 27.5°W, is world's northernmost ice cap. During several field campaigns in the 70s and 90s, its ice thickness was measured, mass balance and meteorological measurements occurred, and a 345 m deep ice core was drilled. From this ice core it is known that the ice cap (largely) disappeared during the Holocene Thermal Maximum.

Their age and elevation indicate, instead, a history of higher relative sea level (and subsequent fall) on windward Oahu during the middle to late Holocene. This history is consistent with geophysical models of postglacial geoid subsidence over the equatorial ocean first predicted by Walcott (1972) and later refined by Clark et al. (1978) and Mitrovica and Peltier (1991).

The argument that all sea level changes was due to other causes (postglacial geoid subsidence) is absurd, since we know the ice grew on Greenland , the Hans Tausen Iskappe being the example impossible to just deny.  An entire ice cap reformed, after melting.  Why would anyone just deny this?

It reeks of something other than science.

Here are the ice core data in question.
The interested reader can see for him/herself that - surprise! - F_X is full of shit.

For some reason the alarmist don't want to believe the climate data from the past.  Most likely because it is used as an argument against current alarm about changes,  which is understandable.  But it's stupid.  It is letting the real deniers control the debate.

Just because it was warmer in the past in no way means we are not in possible danger from our current changing of the entire atmosphere. 

oh it would be thousands of years before any written records.  and oral history, while it does occasionally surprise us by preserving apparently real information in nonterrible form over a period of centuries, is still unreliable, certainly over that span of time.
But it was, and still is, also "example history", where along with oral instructions, showing each new generation how to plant, fertilize, store, make things and where water is, how to kill or avoid predators (especially other humans), all the things that our ancestors learned and passed on, evolution at work, so that those that survived (our ancestors) were pretty damn good at keeping knowledge and passing it on.

Speaking of, and back to the topic, a new paper by some seriously smart researchers confirms once again (no surprise there) the simple facts about the recent past, as well as the Altithermal period.
Politics and Current Events / Re: I <3 the ACLU.
"It's true," Oliver continued. "We are currently being sued by Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy. I desperately want to talk to you about this tonight, but our lawyers have suggested that the court be the venue where we work this out. And I do get that, but I promise we will tell you all about this as soon as it is over. And of course, Mr. Nutter Butter will get his chance to tell his side of the story, too."
Yep.  There is also this free thing called radio, where you can pluck music for free from the air.
You know in your heart it is true
They'll just wander through people's yards willy-nilly
Not where you are "allowed" to hunt them.
It is a bad idea to feed and chill with bears and allow them to become comfortable around people's houses.
The same is true for deer.
"Since 1896, when Svante Arrhenius first postulated the theory of global warming due to carbon dioxide, control of carbon dioxide has been considered the most effective method of slowing warming," Jacobson says in an interview. "Whereas carbon dioxide clearly causes most global warming, control of shorter-lived warming constituents, such as black carbon, should have a faster effect on slowing warming, which is the conclusion I have drawn from this study. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 does not even consider black carbon as a pollutant to control with respect to global warming."

The reason the issue of diesel versus gasoline is important, says Jacobson, is that, in Europe, one of the major strategies for satisfying the Kyoto Protocol is to promote further the use of diesel vehicles and specifically to provide a greater tax advantage for diesel. Tax laws in all European Union countries, except the United Kingdom, currently favor diesel, thereby inadvertently promoting global warming, Jacobson says. Further, some countries, including Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands, also tax fuels based on their carbon content. These taxes also favor diesel, he notes, since diesel releases less carbon per kilometer [mile] than does gasoline. Nevertheless, the small amount of black carbon and organic matter emitted by diesel may warm the atmosphere more over 100 years than the additional carbon dioxide emitted by gasoline.
If you only knew the number and extent of wealthy people, or powerful people, who use drugs ... and do the most ubelievable batshit fucking insane shit ...

Judges, cops, politicians, NASA engineers, nuclear engineers, Arab billionaires, high ranking religious leaders, business men, cult leaders, it goes on and on and on

Science / Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
You know, just because you type words out, that doesn't make them true.  I posted official data (and linked to the sources), just as I always have.  I find it most strange that the exact region where this huge ice berg just calved is the one region with the most cooling at the south pole.
The crack was first noticed in the 60s, and with rising temps there it is reasonable to think changes might influence the ice sheet.  But to find that it's actually been cooling there (for decades) was a surprise. 
Science / Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Calm down
It is baffling that someone who seems hyper-reluctant to make inferences from data should so habitually make inferences that bear no relation to the data.
Science / Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
But is it evidence?

Science / Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Could it possibly be that F X is countering these arguments with data?  A wild concept I know but still - looks like that's what he's doing to me.

Science / Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Why is evidence that the area is cooling relevant to the topic of the ice-shelf detaching?
Nobody actually knows. We dio know that in 1998 the cycle there changed, and the same area that showed the most warming has been cooling.  The ocean around the region also has cooled, both are evident using the GISS image.

But over the past two decades, cold easterly winds have increased in strength, resulting in a cooling trend. There's been little change in the rest of Antarctica, says Turner.

What's most surprising is that Turner's team conclude that the previous warming seen in the Antarctic Peninsula cannot be clearly attributed to global warming. Data from ice cores suggest it is still - just - within the range of natural variability seen over the past 1000 years.

Our results also indicate that the cooling initiated in 1998/1999 has been most significant in the N and NE of the AP and the South Shetland Islands (> 0.5 °C between the two last decades), modest in the Orkney Islands, and absent in the SW of the AP. This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP, including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.

The cooling trend is often attributed to ozone loss, but that's also not really known with certainty.

That things have become colder is no longer a dispute.  The growing New Zealand glaciers are also evidence of a cooling trend. 

Science / Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Even more disturbing is that the trend for the region where this horror is happening shows cooling, not warming.

make inferences that bear no relation to the data.
data is awesome
If you can't understand the evidence, then you are an idiot.

If you can't grasp the phrase " the trend for the region where this horror is happening shows cooling, not warming", then you are hopeless.
Global warming can do anything.  Even be a pirate.
Science / Re: Size of Larsen C iceberg calculated
Ya I don't know of any serious scientist who claims this event is down to AGW and the hysterics following earlier ice shelf collapses seems to have died down as people realise that ice shelves are transient features.  Still, that doesn't stop the usual lunatics in the lying MSM from hyping this latest one up as global warming and deliberately misinforming the public.  I guess they are simply incapable of helping themselves.
It seems so at times.  The brainwashing is strong in some.