Help
And in my view, the post that captured the essence of this debate was #2 (on page 1). It gets my upvote today.
Climate change a different take on what to do about it.
#2601
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,556
- Joined: 2009-August-02
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2015-November-12, 07:18
This is to celebrate five years?!? of this thread.
And in my view, the post that captured the essence of this debate was #2 (on page 1). It gets my upvote today.
And in my view, the post that captured the essence of this debate was #2 (on page 1). It gets my upvote today.
#2602
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 2014-May-30
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-November-12, 07:25
shyams, on 2015-November-12, 07:18, said:
This is to celebrate five years?!? of this thread.
And in my view, the post that captured the essence of this debate was #2 (on page 1). It gets my upvote today.
And in my view, the post that captured the essence of this debate was #2 (on page 1). It gets my upvote today.
And why am I not surprised, I Wonder ?
#2603
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 2014-May-30
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-November-12, 08:00
Here,s my take on it and open to discution but not smear...
OK. People are afraid that the glaciers from Greenland and the Antarctica are going to completely melt away and inundate the world and it’s coastal cities because of massive CO2 emissions. Let’s start with this picture…
http://www.vukcevic....net/CO2-Arc.gif
You can see that the Arctic temperatures are very closely related to the Arctic Geomagnetic field and have absolutely no correlation with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Furthermore, Mars and the moon don’t have an atmosphere and are unbelievably cold. The earth has an atmosphere with less then 0,05% CO2 in it. I’d say that our atmosphere is just about 99,95% oxygen and nitrogen and that the temperatures on earth are more then comfortable. So, I’d say that it’s the oxygen and nitrogen in our atmosphere, that Mars and the moon don’t have, that are the greenhouse effect gases here on earth (convection). Besides, what’s so special about the CO2 molecular structure that would make it so greenhouse effect maniac at those concentrations ? Now that we have that CO2 fairy tale out of the way, let’s see the bigger picture…
From this graphic of the temperature records at the GISP2 ice core in Greenland, we know we had hot spells in the past.
http://beyondthespin...727068_orig.png
In the Minoan period, 3300 years ago, temperatures shot up at some –28,7C. In the Roman period, 2000 years ago, they shot up at some –29,5C, and in the medieval period, they shot up at some –30,5C. During the little ice age, some 350 years ago, they were down at about –32,0C. So, approximately, the temperatures at the GISP2 core historically vary from –28C to –32C.
So…
If today we can get temperature records from 10000 years ago and beyond from those ice cores, then those glaciers never melted away, despite those hot spells.
If the temperatures during those hot spells were in the region of –30C, then it would take a lot more then a mere 5C increase, which never happened since the last ice age, to melt them away and inundate everything.
The summit of the GISP2 ice core is right smack in the middle of Greenland at an altitude of 3027m. It will never melt away unless temperatures rise some 30C degrees.
Besides, all the global climate change fuss is about that little red line in the lower right hand corner of the graph. We are way below what it used to be !
The Greenland ice sheet is estimated at about 2 850 000 Km3. The total ocean surfaces of the earth is estimated at 361 900 000 Km2. This means that if all of the Greenland ice sheet would melt away, ocean levels would rise 7,9 meters around the world. Studies of sea levels during the medieval warm period indicate a rise of only about 20 cm (0,2m).
http://c3headlines.t...33ac485d970c-pi
This means that the Greenland ice sheet only lost some 2,5% of it’s mass, it took more then 300 years and furthermore the temperatures were a full 1C degree higher back then ! I have not taken Antarctica into account yet !
Antarctica is somewhat more south then Greenland is north and is much colder. So, if Antarctica was affected by the warming then it might have been less so. Let’s say, a conservative ball park figure, that Antarctica lost only 10% of what Greenland lost due to colder weather. Antarctica’s ice sheet is estimated at 10 times the size of Greenland’s (26 500 000 Km3). So, 10 times 10% is 1. This means that Antarctica lost at least as much water as Greenland did so that the Greenland ice sheet effectively lost only some 1,2% of it’s mass to have the seas rise 20cm. How can that be ?
They show us gigantic iceberg chunks melt and break away from the glaciers. They say that these glaciers are melting faster then ever before because of the climate warming. It makes for a fantastic propaganda story for their global warming theory because those falling icebergs are so spectacular. What they omit to say is that global warming also makes for greater precipitations and that ice sheets don’t just melt away, they also grow. Effectively, the glaciers might be loosing a lot of ice on their periphery at low altitudes (<1500m), but, satellite altimetry measurements show that those ice sheets have grown by more then 20 cm a year at higher altitudes (>1500m) since 2000. So, what the ice sheets lose on their periphery they gain in altitude. All in all, I’d say that they are somewhat growing now.
http://2.bp.blogspot...eenShot1824.jpg
That’s why Greenland lost only 1% of it’s ice sheet, in 300 years, during the medieval warm period, and it’s not going to be any worse this time around !
Did you notice in the graph above that the ice sheet elevation change since 1995 (red line) is rising, meaning more snow accumulation ? Well what do you know ? Right when the sun’s activity, as measured by sunspot numbers, started to diminish after 1991-1993…
https://tallbloke.fi...peg?w=614&h=418
And look what’s in store for the near future according to the models…
https://tallbloke.fi.../09/image7.jpeg
COLD !!!
So… Enough of those catastrophic Halloween global warming hysteria stories ! The warming and cooling of the earth are cycles due to variations in the sun’s activity. Here’s a smoothed out version of it…
http://www.docmercur...ds/warming1.jpg
This variation in the sun’s activity has been proven to be tides in the sun’s plasma caused, among other things, by the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn, just like the moon creates tides in the earth’s oceans. There is nothing we can do about it ! They have and will always be there.
Proof you say ? Here you go ! Correlation between temperature anomalies and sunspot numbers…
http://wattsupwithth...p_image0022.jpg
In the graph above, the blue line is the observed temperature anomalies and the red line is the calculated temperature anomalies using a mathematical formula which takes into account only sunspot numbers. Pretty nice Huh ! Forget that CO2 hysteria ! Oh ! And notice how temperatures have started to come down since about 2009, just like the models say !
Oh ! I almost forgot ! Plants need that CO2 to live. The more the merrier. More CO2 in the atmosphere means that plants grow faster. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more CO2 in the oceans. More CO2 in the oceans means more plankton and therefore more food for fish and sea mammals. But hey ! Don’t tell anyone !
So, please, let us stop all those nasty chemicals like sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, smoke, dust and other solid materials like plastics, just to name a few, from being released into our environment. They are really damaging. But, water vapor and CO2 coming out of industrial stacks are harmless. Let It Be ! Trying to eliminate or reduce CO2 won’t change a thing for climate change is preordained like the models have proven. Climate change due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is just a hoax
Pierre Bernier
M.Sc. Chemistry
OK. People are afraid that the glaciers from Greenland and the Antarctica are going to completely melt away and inundate the world and it’s coastal cities because of massive CO2 emissions. Let’s start with this picture…
http://www.vukcevic....net/CO2-Arc.gif
You can see that the Arctic temperatures are very closely related to the Arctic Geomagnetic field and have absolutely no correlation with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Furthermore, Mars and the moon don’t have an atmosphere and are unbelievably cold. The earth has an atmosphere with less then 0,05% CO2 in it. I’d say that our atmosphere is just about 99,95% oxygen and nitrogen and that the temperatures on earth are more then comfortable. So, I’d say that it’s the oxygen and nitrogen in our atmosphere, that Mars and the moon don’t have, that are the greenhouse effect gases here on earth (convection). Besides, what’s so special about the CO2 molecular structure that would make it so greenhouse effect maniac at those concentrations ? Now that we have that CO2 fairy tale out of the way, let’s see the bigger picture…
From this graphic of the temperature records at the GISP2 ice core in Greenland, we know we had hot spells in the past.
http://beyondthespin...727068_orig.png
In the Minoan period, 3300 years ago, temperatures shot up at some –28,7C. In the Roman period, 2000 years ago, they shot up at some –29,5C, and in the medieval period, they shot up at some –30,5C. During the little ice age, some 350 years ago, they were down at about –32,0C. So, approximately, the temperatures at the GISP2 core historically vary from –28C to –32C.
So…
If today we can get temperature records from 10000 years ago and beyond from those ice cores, then those glaciers never melted away, despite those hot spells.
If the temperatures during those hot spells were in the region of –30C, then it would take a lot more then a mere 5C increase, which never happened since the last ice age, to melt them away and inundate everything.
The summit of the GISP2 ice core is right smack in the middle of Greenland at an altitude of 3027m. It will never melt away unless temperatures rise some 30C degrees.
Besides, all the global climate change fuss is about that little red line in the lower right hand corner of the graph. We are way below what it used to be !
The Greenland ice sheet is estimated at about 2 850 000 Km3. The total ocean surfaces of the earth is estimated at 361 900 000 Km2. This means that if all of the Greenland ice sheet would melt away, ocean levels would rise 7,9 meters around the world. Studies of sea levels during the medieval warm period indicate a rise of only about 20 cm (0,2m).
http://c3headlines.t...33ac485d970c-pi
This means that the Greenland ice sheet only lost some 2,5% of it’s mass, it took more then 300 years and furthermore the temperatures were a full 1C degree higher back then ! I have not taken Antarctica into account yet !
Antarctica is somewhat more south then Greenland is north and is much colder. So, if Antarctica was affected by the warming then it might have been less so. Let’s say, a conservative ball park figure, that Antarctica lost only 10% of what Greenland lost due to colder weather. Antarctica’s ice sheet is estimated at 10 times the size of Greenland’s (26 500 000 Km3). So, 10 times 10% is 1. This means that Antarctica lost at least as much water as Greenland did so that the Greenland ice sheet effectively lost only some 1,2% of it’s mass to have the seas rise 20cm. How can that be ?
They show us gigantic iceberg chunks melt and break away from the glaciers. They say that these glaciers are melting faster then ever before because of the climate warming. It makes for a fantastic propaganda story for their global warming theory because those falling icebergs are so spectacular. What they omit to say is that global warming also makes for greater precipitations and that ice sheets don’t just melt away, they also grow. Effectively, the glaciers might be loosing a lot of ice on their periphery at low altitudes (<1500m), but, satellite altimetry measurements show that those ice sheets have grown by more then 20 cm a year at higher altitudes (>1500m) since 2000. So, what the ice sheets lose on their periphery they gain in altitude. All in all, I’d say that they are somewhat growing now.
http://2.bp.blogspot...eenShot1824.jpg
That’s why Greenland lost only 1% of it’s ice sheet, in 300 years, during the medieval warm period, and it’s not going to be any worse this time around !
Did you notice in the graph above that the ice sheet elevation change since 1995 (red line) is rising, meaning more snow accumulation ? Well what do you know ? Right when the sun’s activity, as measured by sunspot numbers, started to diminish after 1991-1993…
https://tallbloke.fi...peg?w=614&h=418
And look what’s in store for the near future according to the models…
https://tallbloke.fi.../09/image7.jpeg
COLD !!!
So… Enough of those catastrophic Halloween global warming hysteria stories ! The warming and cooling of the earth are cycles due to variations in the sun’s activity. Here’s a smoothed out version of it…
http://www.docmercur...ds/warming1.jpg
This variation in the sun’s activity has been proven to be tides in the sun’s plasma caused, among other things, by the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn, just like the moon creates tides in the earth’s oceans. There is nothing we can do about it ! They have and will always be there.
Proof you say ? Here you go ! Correlation between temperature anomalies and sunspot numbers…
http://wattsupwithth...p_image0022.jpg
In the graph above, the blue line is the observed temperature anomalies and the red line is the calculated temperature anomalies using a mathematical formula which takes into account only sunspot numbers. Pretty nice Huh ! Forget that CO2 hysteria ! Oh ! And notice how temperatures have started to come down since about 2009, just like the models say !
Oh ! I almost forgot ! Plants need that CO2 to live. The more the merrier. More CO2 in the atmosphere means that plants grow faster. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more CO2 in the oceans. More CO2 in the oceans means more plankton and therefore more food for fish and sea mammals. But hey ! Don’t tell anyone !
So, please, let us stop all those nasty chemicals like sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, smoke, dust and other solid materials like plastics, just to name a few, from being released into our environment. They are really damaging. But, water vapor and CO2 coming out of industrial stacks are harmless. Let It Be ! Trying to eliminate or reduce CO2 won’t change a thing for climate change is preordained like the models have proven. Climate change due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is just a hoax
Pierre Bernier
M.Sc. Chemistry
#2604
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,662
- Joined: 2006-February-21
- Location:Upper Michigan
- Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge
Posted 2015-November-12, 09:23
There is a real scientist named Pierre Bernier, Ph.D., who works for the Canadian Forest Service: 60-seconds with Dr. Pierre Bernier, quantifying climate change impacts to inform forest management.
Then there is a Pierre Bernier who posts comments on sites like this: Uncovered Government Docs Prove Chemtrails Real
Only one of them uses a spell checker.
Then there is a Pierre Bernier who posts comments on sites like this: Uncovered Government Docs Prove Chemtrails Real
Quote
Hi Greg,
I really dont know if this chemtrail stuff is really going on. One thing I know is that if it is and the powers that be are trying to manage the climate change, they are doublely ignorant. First they are poisonning our planet and second, what ever they do to try to change the climate is futile. Climate change is natural and has nothing to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Climate change is the result of the planets going around the sun causing tides in the sun’s plasma, just like the moon causes tides in our earth’s oceans. Please look at the works of M. A. Vukcevic, R. J. Salvador and most importantly Nicola Scafetta from Duke University. I would really appreciate you invite one of those people.
Regards,
Pierre
I really dont know if this chemtrail stuff is really going on. One thing I know is that if it is and the powers that be are trying to manage the climate change, they are doublely ignorant. First they are poisonning our planet and second, what ever they do to try to change the climate is futile. Climate change is natural and has nothing to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Climate change is the result of the planets going around the sun causing tides in the sun’s plasma, just like the moon causes tides in our earth’s oceans. Please look at the works of M. A. Vukcevic, R. J. Salvador and most importantly Nicola Scafetta from Duke University. I would really appreciate you invite one of those people.
Regards,
Pierre
Only one of them uses a spell checker.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#2605
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-November-12, 09:39
Dr. David Evans' "adjustments" to the basic theoretical climate model make sense and also provide GST values that MATCH observations. (Less warming despite more [CO2] and no tropospheric "hot-spot" (a core condition of the GCM runs).
A straight-forward, fairly low-tech explanation is provided here. Not surprisingly, it has to do with:
"Skeptics are usually skeptical because of empirical evidence that disagrees with the climate models. ‘Nuf said.
But why do the models get it wrong? Previously skeptics have questioned the three parameter values in the basic model — the total feedbacks, the reduction in radiation to space from CO2 when the CO2 concentration doubles, and the Planck constant (in order of decreasing doubts). But until now skeptics appear to have accepted the architecture of the conventional basic climate model — how those parameters are arithmetically combined to estimate the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2, the ECS.
Joanne and I were in that camp too until recently, thinking the problems probably lay mainly with the water vapor feedbacks as evidenced by the missing hotspot.
But it turns out it was the architecture that was badly flawed. Merely fixing the architecture, as in this series, brings the ECS into line with the empirical evidence and resolves the hotspot data (yes the hotspot is missing, because the CO2 response pushed the water vapor emissions layer down).
Establishment climate scientists are mainly believers because they believe in “the basic physics”. But they have assumed that the basic physics were applied correctly. Yes, the basic physics may well be about right, but it was applied incorrectly — the model architecture was wrong. It makes all the difference in the world."
Perhaps soon we will be able to worry about real threats to humanity and devote our time and money to them.
A straight-forward, fairly low-tech explanation is provided here. Not surprisingly, it has to do with:
"Skeptics are usually skeptical because of empirical evidence that disagrees with the climate models. ‘Nuf said.
But why do the models get it wrong? Previously skeptics have questioned the three parameter values in the basic model — the total feedbacks, the reduction in radiation to space from CO2 when the CO2 concentration doubles, and the Planck constant (in order of decreasing doubts). But until now skeptics appear to have accepted the architecture of the conventional basic climate model — how those parameters are arithmetically combined to estimate the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2, the ECS.
Joanne and I were in that camp too until recently, thinking the problems probably lay mainly with the water vapor feedbacks as evidenced by the missing hotspot.
But it turns out it was the architecture that was badly flawed. Merely fixing the architecture, as in this series, brings the ECS into line with the empirical evidence and resolves the hotspot data (yes the hotspot is missing, because the CO2 response pushed the water vapor emissions layer down).
Establishment climate scientists are mainly believers because they believe in “the basic physics”. But they have assumed that the basic physics were applied correctly. Yes, the basic physics may well be about right, but it was applied incorrectly — the model architecture was wrong. It makes all the difference in the world."
Perhaps soon we will be able to worry about real threats to humanity and devote our time and money to them.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#2606
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 2014-May-30
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-November-12, 10:00
PassedOut, on 2015-November-12, 09:23, said:
There is a real scientist named Pierre Bernier, Ph.D., who works for the Canadian Forest Service: 60-seconds with Dr. Pierre Bernier, quantifying climate change impacts to inform forest management.
Then there is a Pierre Bernier who posts comments on sites like this: Uncovered Government Docs Prove Chemtrails Real
Only one of them uses a spell checker.
Then there is a Pierre Bernier who posts comments on sites like this: Uncovered Government Docs Prove Chemtrails Real
Only one of them uses a spell checker.
Keep reading lower []...
Now look at this route map…
https://www.united.c..._2015_10_01.pdf
and it's only United Airline routes. All planes from one origin going to an other specific destination, take the same route. So, if any number of planes go north east and some others go north west and have their paths cross each other at some point, given enough planes, you will have a criss crossing of condensation trails. With the Wind displacing these trails, it will look like in your picture.
Regards
This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2015-November-12, 12:55
#2607
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,662
- Joined: 2006-February-21
- Location:Upper Michigan
- Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge
Posted 2015-November-12, 10:13
baraka, on 2015-November-12, 10:00, said:
Keep reading lower []...
Now look at this route map…
https://www.united.c..._2015_10_01.pdf
and it’s only United Airline routes. All planes from one origin going to an other specific destination, take the same route. So, if any number of planes go north east and some others go north west and have their paths cross each other at some point, given enough planes, you will have a criss crossing of condensation trails. With the Wind displacing these trails, it will look like in your picture.
Regards
Now look at this route map…
https://www.united.c..._2015_10_01.pdf
and it’s only United Airline routes. All planes from one origin going to an other specific destination, take the same route. So, if any number of planes go north east and some others go north west and have their paths cross each other at some point, given enough planes, you will have a criss crossing of condensation trails. With the Wind displacing these trails, it will look like in your picture.
Regards
I know a local guy who actually believes this chemtrails foolishness.
Like you, he ignores all comments that challenge his strong belief. Like you, he restates his original position over and over, either not understanding or not caring that his belief has been refuted.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#2608
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 2014-May-30
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-November-12, 10:13
Is there a moderator on this thread ? If not, I'm out ! I won't accept such misleading disinformation by such ignorant people who only try to destroy and never try to build. It's just not worth the while.
#2609
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,385
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2015-November-12, 10:21
baraka, on 2015-November-12, 10:13, said:
Is there a moderator on this thread ? If not, I'm out ! I won't accept such misleading disinformation by such ignorant people who only try to destroy and never try to build. It's just not worth the while.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out ...
Alderaan delenda est
#2610
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 2014-May-30
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-November-12, 10:27
PassedOut, on 2015-November-12, 10:13, said:
I know a local guy who actually believes this chemtrails foolishness.
Like you, he ignores all comments that challenge his strong belief. Like you, he restates his original position over and over, either not understanding or not caring that his belief has been refuted.
Like you, he ignores all comments that challenge his strong belief. Like you, he restates his original position over and over, either not understanding or not caring that his belief has been refuted.
I don't believe in chemtrails []. They are idioties. Just wanted to be polite to get him to invite someone to discuss solar activity. You dont ask someone something by insulting him. Is that so hard to understand ? []
This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2015-November-12, 12:56
#2611
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,662
- Joined: 2006-February-21
- Location:Upper Michigan
- Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge
Posted 2015-November-12, 10:42
baraka, on 2015-November-12, 10:27, said:
I don't believe in chemtrails []. They are idioties. Just wanted to be polite to get him to invite someone to discuss solar activity. You dont ask someone something by insulting him. Is that so hard to understand ? [].
As any careful reader knows, I did not claim that you believe in chemtrails. I was noting that both you and he post in similar ways about your respective beliefs.
This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2015-November-12, 12:57
Reason for edit: removed personal attack from quoted text
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#2612
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,196
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2015-November-12, 13:21
PassedOut, on 2015-November-12, 10:42, said:
As any careful reader knows, I did not claim that you believe in chemtrails. I was noting that both you and he post in similar ways about your respective beliefs.
Quote
This post has been edited by diana_eva: Today, 13:57
Reason for edit: removed personal attack from quoted text
Reason for edit: removed personal attack from quoted text
I'm sorry but it is ridiculous to modify PassedOut's post for the sake of a troll. If anyone here is a gentleman, it is PassedOut, and we should all value that he shares his time and intelligence with us all.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
#2613
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,662
- Joined: 2006-February-21
- Location:Upper Michigan
- Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge
Posted 2015-November-12, 13:34
Winstonm, on 2015-November-12, 13:21, said:
I'm sorry but it is ridiculous to modify PassedOut's post for the sake of a troll. If anyone here is a gentleman, it is PassedOut, and we should all value that he shares his time and intelligence with us all.
Winston, she did not modify my post, just the quoted section calling me a dimwit, and so on. I didn't request that change; I was a bit fond of the way Baraka revealed himself in those quotes. Alas!
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#2614
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,196
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2015-November-12, 13:45
PassedOut, on 2015-November-12, 13:34, said:
Winston, she did not modify my post, just the quoted section calling me a dimwit, and so on. I didn't request that change; I was a bit fond of the way Baraka revealed himself in those quotes. Alas!
I see. I have that comment blocked so I thought yours was being edited.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
#2615
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 4,858
- Joined: 2009-July-26
- Gender:Female
- Location:bucharest / romania
Posted 2015-November-12, 14:00
Winstonm, on 2015-November-12, 13:21, said:
I'm sorry but it is ridiculous to modify PassedOut's post for the sake of a troll. If anyone here is a gentleman, it is PassedOut, and we should all value that he shares his time and intelligence with us all.
Sorry about that. I thought the discussion was fine except for the invectives and didn't want to remove the offensive stuff and follow-ups completely. Editing sucks, and I hate to interfere. Warned baraka to watch his tone, but after some of the previous posts can't be too harsh if he assumed that's the normal tone in this thread
#2616
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-November-12, 14:09
diana_eva, on 2015-November-12, 14:00, said:
Sorry about that. I thought the discussion was fine except for the invectives and didn't want to remove the offensive stuff and follow-ups completely. Editing sucks, and I hate to interfere. Warned baraka to watch his tone, but after some of the previous posts can't be too harsh if he assumed that's the normal tone in this thread
Thank you for the deft hand and the application of reasoned judgement relative to personal attacks. This topic is much more contentious than some would like or are willing to accept. They are able to block so, like fingers in ears shouting la-la-la....what you don't know can't possibly hurt you...right?
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#2617
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,662
- Joined: 2006-February-21
- Location:Upper Michigan
- Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge
Posted 2015-November-12, 18:42
Greenland in the news
Interesting aerial view.
Quote
A major glacier in Greenland that holds enough water to raise global sea levels by half a metre has begun to crumble into the North Atlantic Ocean, scientists say.
The huge Zachariae Isstrom glacier in northeast Greenland started to melt rapidly in 2012 and is now breaking up into large icebergs where the glacier meets the sea, monitoring has revealed.
The calving of the glacier into chunks of floating ice will set in train a rise in sea levels that will continue for decades to come, the US team warns.
“Even if we have some really cool years ahead, we think the glacier is now unstable,” said Jeremie Mouginot at the University of California, Irvine. “Now this has started, it will continue until it retreats to a ridge about 30km back which could stabilise it and perhaps slow that retreat down.”
Mouginot and his colleagues drew on 40 years of satellite data and aerial surveys to show that the enormous Zachariae Isstrom glacier began to recede three times faster from 2012, with its retreat speeding up by 125 metres per year every year until the most recent measurements in 2015.
The huge Zachariae Isstrom glacier in northeast Greenland started to melt rapidly in 2012 and is now breaking up into large icebergs where the glacier meets the sea, monitoring has revealed.
The calving of the glacier into chunks of floating ice will set in train a rise in sea levels that will continue for decades to come, the US team warns.
“Even if we have some really cool years ahead, we think the glacier is now unstable,” said Jeremie Mouginot at the University of California, Irvine. “Now this has started, it will continue until it retreats to a ridge about 30km back which could stabilise it and perhaps slow that retreat down.”
Mouginot and his colleagues drew on 40 years of satellite data and aerial surveys to show that the enormous Zachariae Isstrom glacier began to recede three times faster from 2012, with its retreat speeding up by 125 metres per year every year until the most recent measurements in 2015.
Interesting aerial view.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#2618
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-November-12, 20:01
So then, what is the total ice loss for Greenland?
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#2619
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,496
- Joined: 2006-February-24
Posted 2015-November-12, 20:53
From The Wake by Paul Kingsnorth
No doubt Kingsnorth's friends George Monbiot and Naomi Klein would take issue with naht can be done but not with Kingsnorth's grief for what we have lost, which we must face, and his determination to “challenge the stories which underpin our civilization: the myth of progress, the myth of human centrality and the myth of separation from ‘nature.’ ”
Quote
when will i be free saes the cilde to the stag
and the stag saes thu will nefer be free
then when will angland be free
angland will nefer be free
then what can be done
naht can be done
then how moste i lif
thu moste be triewe that is all there is
be triewe
be triewe
and the stag saes thu will nefer be free
then when will angland be free
angland will nefer be free
then what can be done
naht can be done
then how moste i lif
thu moste be triewe that is all there is
be triewe
be triewe
No doubt Kingsnorth's friends George Monbiot and Naomi Klein would take issue with naht can be done but not with Kingsnorth's grief for what we have lost, which we must face, and his determination to “challenge the stories which underpin our civilization: the myth of progress, the myth of human centrality and the myth of separation from ‘nature.’ ”
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
#2620
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 2014-May-30
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-November-20, 08:58
PassedOut, on 2015-November-12, 18:42, said:
So how can a big chunk of ice have the sea levels rise 50cm when in 300 years of medieval warm period, where temperatures were a full 1C degree higher, had them rise only 20cm ? Mistery !
Oh, answer the previous post question please. Shurely you passed your grade school maths. Otherwise you would not post here, right ?