Remember me
▼ Content

Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline



Page 3 of 3<123
09-05-2019 22:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
dehammer wrote:noun: civil war; plural noun: civil wars
a war between citizens of the same country

Before the war of independence, America colonies were part of the British Empire, which meant that our ancestors were citizens of the British empire. Thus if we had lost the war, it would have been a war between citizens of the same country/empire. Because we won, we because a new nation.

In the war between the states, the southern states has declared their independence, but because they lost, it was a civil war, i.e. a war between citizens of the same country. Had they won, it would have been a war of independence.


...

dehammer wrote:
I really do not see what slavery has to do with glaciers.


Do you routinely confuse yourself this easily?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-05-2019 22:51
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline
I thought this was the title of this thread? Am I somehow misreading it? I don't see anything in the title about slavery, or civil war.

Or perhaps you are confused about what a title is?

Perhaps you are confused what a subject is?
Edited on 09-05-2019 22:56
10-05-2019 01:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline
I thought this was the title of this thread? Am I somehow misreading it? I don't see anything in the title about slavery, or civil war.

Or perhaps you are confused about what a title is?

Perhaps you are confused what a subject is?


Does it matter? Who made you the topic cop?


The Parrot Killer
10-05-2019 02:05
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Shows how confused you are.
10-05-2019 16:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
dehammer wrote:
civil war
noun
noun: civil war; plural noun: civil wars
a war between citizens of the same country

Before the war of independence, America colonies were part of the British Empire, which meant that our ancestors were citizens of the British empire. Thus if we had lost the war, it would have been a war between citizens of the same country/empire. Because we won, we because a new nation.

In the war between the states, the southern states has declared their independence, but because they lost, it was a civil war, i.e. a war between citizens of the same country. Had they won, it would have been a war of independence.

Some say what the Nazi party did was a war on their own citizens. There were German Jews and the Nazis turned on them. They were not the only ones.

The Russians was definitely a war between citizens of their own citizens.



Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline
I thought this was the title of this thread? Am I somehow misreading it? I don't see anything in the title about Civil War or independence or the British or Germany or the Nazis or the Russians.

Or perhaps you are confused about what a title is?

Perhaps you are confused what a subject is?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-05-2019 16:31
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
So you admit that you deliberately took the thread off on a tangent to sink the thread because you don't believe in science.
10-05-2019 17:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
dehammer wrote:
So you admit that you deliberately took the thread off on a tangent to sink the thread because you don't believe in science.

That would be you. Why did you bring up the Civil War and Russia and Nazis, etc... in a thread of a completely unrelated topic?

Were you deliberately trying to sink the thread because you can't distinguish science from religion? That's a pretty petty justification for having done so.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-05-2019 18:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
So you admit that you deliberately took the thread off on a tangent to sink the thread because you don't believe in science.


No, YOU took the thread off tangent in Post 347. You have only yourself to blame. It guess it's because you deny science.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 10-05-2019 18:50
11-05-2019 01:53
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
What ever you science deniers believe. I would have an easier time teaching advance math to a brick wall, than science to you.
11-05-2019 05:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
dehammer wrote:What ever you science deniers believe. I would have an easier time teaching advance math to a brick wall, than science to you.

I confess, I would be extremely pessimistic regarding any prospect of you being able to teach me something.

If it makes you feel better to believe the the reason is because I am "stoopid" then you do what you must.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-05-2019 06:32
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
Desertphile wrote:


A few of many peer-reviewed science papers that show almost all of the world's glaciers are in sharp, rapid, unprecedented decline:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/

http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/global-data-sets/GLACIER_cogley_arithmetic.txt

http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/geofag/GEG2130/h09/Reading%20list/Norwegian%20mountain%20glaciers%20in%20the%20past,%20present%20and%20future.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000174/art00002

http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2009/00000050/00000050/art00015

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55553

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2573&from=rss_home

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2006/00000043/00000001/art00032

http://www.wrq.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2008_kehrwald.pdf

http://instaar.metapress.com/content/xn9255q33110739t/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0821_020821_wireglaciers.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029703.shtml

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n5/abs/ngeo186.html

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/121653main_ScambosetalGRLPeninsulaAccel.pdf

http://www.glaciologia.cl/textos/RignotetalGRLPeninsulaAccel.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2004GL021106.shtml


Thanks dp, I'm actually going to be working on a unique climate change model and this information will help me. These things do take time and hopefully the right facts will come out in the end. Thanks
11-05-2019 16:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
James___ wrote:
Desertphile wrote:
A few of many peer-reviewed science papers that show almost all of the world's glaciers are in sharp, rapid, unprecedented decline:


Thanks dp, I'm actually going to be working on a unique climate change model and this information will help me. These things do take time and hopefully the right facts will come out in the end. Thanks

Do you actually lend credence to popular urban legends due solely to their popularity? ... or are you just a die-hard fan for well-marketed urban legends?

Believing what you are ordered to believe does not make you smart. It certainly rendered you incapable of understanding Stefan-Boltzmann.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-05-2019 16:30
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
IBdaMann wrote:If it makes you feel better to believe the the reason is because I am "stoopid" then you do what you must.
didn't say you were stupid, but your anti science beliefs are getting in the way.
11-05-2019 17:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
dehammer wrote:didn't say you were stupid, but your anti science beliefs are getting in the way.

What beliefs would those be? The laws of thermodynamics or black-body radiation science?

You aren't aware of any beliefs of mine that are outside of science with the exception of the Abolition being a violation of State sovereignty.

So, of what beliefs are you speaking?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-05-2019 17:29
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
You use words you don't understand as a shield.
11-05-2019 19:31
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Desertphile wrote:
A few of many peer-reviewed science papers that show almost all of the world's glaciers are in sharp, rapid, unprecedented decline:


Thanks dp, I'm actually going to be working on a unique climate change model and this information will help me. These things do take time and hopefully the right facts will come out in the end. Thanks

Do you actually lend credence to popular urban legends due solely to their popularity? ... or are you just a die-hard fan for well-marketed urban legends?

Believing what you are ordered to believe does not make you smart. It certainly rendered you incapable of understanding Stefan-Boltzmann.



at least now I know why you and ITN seem like Hamas and the Taliban. it has to do with that writing from 1848 that you know so much about. that makes you and isn't a couple of politicians and this is ya'alls forum. What a waste of time.
11-05-2019 22:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:If it makes you feel better to believe the the reason is because I am "stoopid" then you do what you must.
didn't say you were stupid, but your anti science beliefs are getting in the way.


The laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are not anti-science. They ARE theories of science. It is YOU that denies them.

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2019 22:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
You use words you don't understand as a shield.


Argument of the stone. He presented the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics to you. He presented the Stefan-Boltzmann law to you. These are equations. They are not words.

Redefinition fallacy (equation <-> words). Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2019 22:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Desertphile wrote:
A few of many peer-reviewed science papers that show almost all of the world's glaciers are in sharp, rapid, unprecedented decline:


Thanks dp, I'm actually going to be working on a unique climate change model and this information will help me. These things do take time and hopefully the right facts will come out in the end. Thanks

Do you actually lend credence to popular urban legends due solely to their popularity? ... or are you just a die-hard fan for well-marketed urban legends?

Believing what you are ordered to believe does not make you smart. It certainly rendered you incapable of understanding Stefan-Boltzmann.



at least now I know why you and ITN seem like Hamas and the Taliban. it has to do with that writing from 1848 that you know so much about. that makes you and isn't a couple of politicians and this is ya'alls forum. What a waste of time.


Redefinition fallacy (science <-> politics, radical hate group <-> politics, opinion <-> dictatorship). Insult fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2019 22:57
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Words, numbers, none of it means anything if you do not understand it, and you obviously do not. You throw them out to end conversations.
Edited on 11-05-2019 22:57
12-05-2019 00:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
dehammer wrote: Words, numbers, none of it means anything if you do not understand it, and you obviously do not. You throw them out to end conversations.

You are the only one throwing around meaningless words and numbers, ... and then complaining when their meaninglessness is mentioned.

You have yet to engage in discussing science. You have focused solely on your religious beliefs ... which you strangely insist is somehow science. I just happen to be an atheist and don't subscribe to yours or anyone else's religion.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-05-2019 01:14
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
What ever you think Michael.
12-05-2019 21:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
Words, numbers, none of it means anything if you do not understand it, and you obviously do not. You throw them out to end conversations.


Equations are not words, dumbass. The only one arguing over the meanings of words and trying to redefine them is YOU.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-05-2019 21:56
13-05-2019 04:37
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
What ever you think Hansen.
18-05-2019 04:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Desertphile wrote:


A few of many peer-reviewed science papers that show almost all of the world's glaciers are in sharp, rapid, unprecedented decline:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/

http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/global-data-sets/GLACIER_cogley_arithmetic.txt

http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/geofag/GEG2130/h09/Reading%20list/Norwegian%20mountain%20glaciers%20in%20the%20past,%20present%20and%20future.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000174/art00002

http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2009/00000050/00000050/art00015

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55553

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2573&from=rss_home

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2006/00000043/00000001/art00032

http://www.wrq.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2008_kehrwald.pdf

http://instaar.metapress.com/content/xn9255q33110739t/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0821_020821_wireglaciers.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029703.shtml

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n5/abs/ngeo186.html

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/121653main_ScambosetalGRLPeninsulaAccel.pdf

http://www.glaciologia.cl/textos/RignotetalGRLPeninsulaAccel.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2004GL021106.shtml


You gave a long reading list. This isn't any part of a debate. At this long distance in the future from when you first published this treatise, Obama is no longer in power and scientists are no longer afraid to say what they think for fear of losing their jobs.

Consequently we do not have anything like the same stories. Iceland and Greenland glaciers are no longer sworn to be advancing but are in fact growing. Both the Arctic and Antarctic Ice Packs are as large and thick as they've ever been and many of the scientists have now retired.

We have seen the absolutely preposterous acts of Congress under Obama such as a California Representative questioning Dr. Roy Spencer, the retired manager of the NASA weather satellite program showing the actual readings from the weather satellites, which are the only accurate means of measuring Mean Global Temperature, showing nothing but normal temperature chaotic variations. Were the questions on these satellite readings - no Barbara Boxer, I believe had these questions: "Is it true that you voted Republican?" As well as "Is it true that Rush Limbaugh called you his favorite climate expert?"

Tony Heller has published many videos that can be found mostly on Bing since YouTube commonly will not show his data which is reporting temperature data from areas in question newspapers that report entirely different from NASA publicity. It is common for YouTube to not publish things they consider controversial.

So, there is no global warming. There is the perfectly normal temperature changes that lead out of an Interglacial Period and back into an Ice Age to make a return to another Interglacial Period. These were demonstrated by the Ice Core research of the Russians in Vostok, Antarctica and Siberia. As well as American validation research in Alaska.

The Sun puts a given amount of energy upon the Earth. Weather conditions and mostly cloud formations causing wind can cause long but cyclic periods of temperature changes over the entire Earth - there is a limited amount of energy to go around. When weather patterns push more of that energy north or south the lower latitudes have less.

In 1638 a Portuguese ship captain sailed straight across the Arctic Ocean from Japan to Portugal. They had only limited navigation skills at that time and hence he could only have mapped his latitude. In 1955 the USS Skate, the nuclear sub, surfaced in clear water at the north pole. Presently the Arctic Ocean is almost completely covered in ice three times as thick as is normally recorded.

The examples are endless but the gist of it is that there is no abnormal climate and as a spectroscopic expert of sorts, I can tell you that CO2 has no effect.
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Cause of global warming: melting glaciers.2425-07-2019 18:35
Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally16718-05-2019 21:23
Research examines new links between retreating glaciers and global warming130-04-2019 16:04
Mount Everest glaciers are melting. And it's exposing the bodies of dead climbers824-03-2019 02:07
Sharp rise in Arctic temperatures now inevitable – UN214-03-2019 20:27
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact