Greenland icesheet melting

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by James R, Jun 30, 2011.

  1. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,652
    And you won't post any references that support your statement.

    I believe that's known as an impasse. It's often encountered when ignorant people refuse to consider the possibility that they don't know what they're talking about.

    This whole stupid sidetrack appears to hinge on the meaning of the phrase "climate stability"; which implies something called "climate instability' with a more or less opposite meaning.
    Your claim that the last 3 My of climate is unstable is just wrong, ok? The climate has been following a stable pattern for at least that long, ok? "Stable pattern" = "climate stability". Ok?

    That it follows a pattern that correlates well with general hysteresis isn't really very surprising. Hysteresis is quite a general phenomenon. But you probably know that, being an expert and all.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    I did, the fuckin dictionary.
    You won't post any references of climate scientists discussing CURRENT climate and including the last 3 million years under the term CURRENT.

    No if doesn't.

    The discussion is about the meaning when someone writes the CURRENT CLIMATE,and your claim that:

    the current climate has been stable for millions of years, up until now?

    Totally different issue than you now claiming what you meant was the last 3 MY has been in a stable pattern.

    And you haven't explained how "until now" fits into any explanation. Clearly the last 50 years has not changed that 3 Million year pattern.

    No it's not.
    The climate has been in a relatively Stable Pattern for the last 3 million years, but the pattern is one of great climatic instability, swinging from ice ages to interglacials in relatively short periods of time (~13 times in the last million years). So it is quite misleading to simply claim that the Climate is stable for the last 3 million years when you are talking about such rapid changes between two very different climatic states.
    Indeed, if you look at the graph that I posted you will see that the magnitude of the climate swings are getting ever greater, hence less stable.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    So what is the upper end of CO2 in the atmosphere were plants will not get more foliage? I think Glaciers at Glacier Park are growing for the last 3 or 4 years . I guess it will have to be a decade before it becomes climate change aye . So yeah there is a place in Alaska My dad and my uncle Lou checked out . It showed the ice sheets and there regression over about the last 200 years or there about . So my Dad is on side of the debate and my Uncle is on the other side of the debate . So they are walking along the trail and as you walk it will say Glaciers at 200 years ago then you walk aways and it will say Glaciers at 150 years ago and so on . So they get to the sign that says Glaciers at 100 years ago and Me Uncle Lou pipes up . Look how humans have fucked everything up in the last 100 years . Look how far the Glaciers Melted back from this sign when the Glaciers were at this point . So Me Dad blows up at his brother because the distance is no different than the distance from 200 to 100 and 100 to were the glaciers are now . Not that that really means to much , but it was funny , I think I will go google how the earth got oxygenated
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    O.K. I don't know . The records that appear to be most accurate only go to 2005 looks like and at that point the Glaciers in Glacier park were still retreating . The people doing the measuring expected some of the glaciers to be gone by 2010 . Well that came and gone . I can't see were the site confirmed the prediction or dismissed it ? Don't Know . I do know we here locally in the state have experienced cooler temps and more precipitation in the form of snow, sleet and rain for the last 3 years . Snow fall this year is said to be up to 400 percent of average . Time will tell . I am still sticking with more evaporation means more rain fall ( somewhere, Montana being one of the some wheres ) Winners . The temps for the last 3 years have definitely been cooler and wetter than average. So I guess all of us that live for the next 30 years will get a grip on fact and fiction by then . I remember back in the day ( The late 70ds) it was reported all trees would be gone by 2005 . That sure didn't happen . Those " Scientist " sure make climate scientists look bad aye .

    Just because I think there is a lot of hype don't mean I don't believe in energy conservation . Conserve today ! It is the right thing to do
     
  8. cat2only Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334

Share This Page