Discussion:
This didn't take long, the #FELONDent has spent one quarter of his days golfing - where are the Doagies?
Add Reply
Gronk
2025-02-20 05:49:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.the-express.com/news/politics/164071/donald-trump-golf-us-president

Donald Trump has been criticized for "working
a part-time job" as a viral Trump Golf Tracker
suggests he has spent nearly a quarter of his
days since his January 20 inauguration on the
golf course.
Tank
2025-02-20 16:05:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gronk
https://www.the-express.com/news/politics/164071/donald-trump-golf-us-
pres
Post by Gronk
ident
Donald Trump has been criticized for "working
a part-time job" as a viral Trump Golf Tracker
suggests he has spent nearly a quarter of his
days since his January 20 inauguration on the
golf course.
That's where he has his big meetings with Boss Putin to get his marching
orders, so it qualifies as work.
AlleyCat
2025-02-21 22:30:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 22:49:14 -0700, Gronk says...
Post by Gronk
https://www.the-express.com/news/politics/164071/donald-trump-golf-us-president
Donald Trump has been criticized for "working
a part-time job" as a viral Trump Golf Tracker
suggests he has spent nearly a quarter of his
days since his January 20 inauguration on the
golf course.
Climate change: The Panama community that fled its drowning island
Lie.

Norwegian "Miljødirektoratet" and BBC Pushes Sea Level Hysteria, Ignores Real Causes of Panamanian Island Relocation

Loading Image...

The BBC's recent article "Climate change: The Panama community that fled its drowning island, " claims that rising sea levels are swallowing the island of Cartí Sugdupu in Panama due to climate
change. This is false. [emphasis, links added]

The reality is that the island's inhabitants are NOT BEING FORCED TO RELOCATE BECAUSE OF RISING OCEANS, but due to overcrowding, poor infrastructure, and a lack of resources-issues that have NOTHING
TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.

Furthermore, real-world examples and peer-reviewed research contradict the idea that small islands are disappearing due to rising seas. Instead, many islands are growing, adapting, and naturally
shifting over time.

The BBC's report is misleading at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst.

Cartí Sugdupu is one of Panama's San Blas Islands, home to the indigenous Guna people.

The BBC's article, painting a picture of climate-induced displacement, completely ignores the fact that the island is severely overcrowded, with more than 1,000 people packed into a tiny space of
just 0.028 square miles.

That's a population density higher than New York City!

The residents are primarily moving not from rising sea levels, but from poor living conditions, lack of fresh water, and a shortage of space-issues that have been pressing for decades.

Instead of addressing these fundamental concerns, the BBC presents the relocation as a direct result of climate change, despite the absence of evidence that rising seas are responsible.

The sea level around Panama has been rising at an average of about 1 to 3 mm per year, a rate consistent with natural post-Little Ice Age trends, a rate that has not increased during the recent
period of climate change.

As such, there is no indication of an impending climate catastrophe as described in Climate at a Glance. At this pace, it would take centuries before Cartí Sugdupu would face submersion.

Some new islands are even emerging. For example in the article San Blas Reborn: New Islands Emerge Amidst Climate Change Hysteria it has been reported:

A new island is gradually taking shape off the coast of Maoqui in the Dutch Cays. What started as a mere speck of land, approximately 5 meters by 8 meters, has grown over the past decade to a
remarkable 40 meters by 80 meters.

Off the coast of Maoqui in the Dutch Cays, a new island is gradually taking shape. What started as a mere speck of land, approximately 5 meters by 8 meters, has grown over the past decade to a
remarkable 40 meters by 80 meters.

A 2018 study published in Nature Communications examined 101 Pacific and Indian Ocean islands and found that 88 percent were either stable or increasing in size (Kench, Ford, and Owen,2018).

The processes that shape islands-sediment accumulation, reef growth, and dynamic land movement-mean that atolls and low-lying islands are not passive victims of sea level rise.

Tuvalu is a perfect example. Despite years of claims that the country would disappear, its total land area has even grown by 2.9 percent over four decades.

Similar observations have been made for islands in Kiribati, the Maldives, and the Marshall Islands.

If these islands are growing or maintaining their size despite sea level rise, why would Cartí Sugdupu be uniquely doomed? The BBC refuses to acknowledge this inconvenient reality.

The real reason for the relocation of Cartí Sugdupu's residents has nothing to do with climate change. Instead, it comes down to basic infrastructure challenges:

Overpopulation - As seen in the head photograph, the island is overcrowded, with nowhere to expand. Unlike coral atolls that naturally grow, Cartí Sugdupu is an isolated, heavily inhabited island
with no room for additional housing or development.
Lack of Freshwater and Sanitation - Many small islands struggle with freshwater availability. The BBC ignores this and instead attributes all hardships to climate change.
Economic and Government Decisions - Panama's government is relocating the residents as part of a planned move, not an emergency evacuation due to rising waters.

The BBC's reporting is a prime example of climate alarmism dressed up as journalism, with the organization pushing a narrative while ignoring crucial facts.

Rather than investigating the real reasons behind Cartí Sugdupu's relocation-overpopulation, lack of infrastructure, and government decisions-the BBC misleadingly claims climate change is forcing its
residents to relocate.

It is the government that has made that decision, and not because the seas are rising at a historically unusual rate.

The BBC ignores peer-reviewed research disproving its claim that islands are disappearing, fails to mention historical sea level trends, and omits crucial local factors that explain the island's
challenges.

This isn't objective reporting-it is activism disguised as news. The BBC's audience deserves better, it deserves the truth.

============================================================================

THIS Is Why Chicken Shit Chicken Littles Screech About Climate And Weather And Global Warbling:

The UN Makes it Official: Global Warming Hysteria Is All About Redistributing Wealth

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

Global Study Reveals Wealth Redistribution From Blue-Carbon Ecosystems

Failed Climate Policies Are About Wealth Redistribution

"We Redistribute De Facto The World's Wealth By Climate Policy."

How Global Warming Has Made The Rich Richer
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer

The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/?sh=4f89a2d429be

The Doha Wealth Redistribution Process Moves On
https://townhall.com/columnists/davidrothbard/2012/12/14/the-doha-wealth-redistribution-process-moves-on-n1465410

=====

"There is no doubt, that we need to have a complete transformation... the transformation of the economy, and that includes, of course, the private sector."

A carbon tax will change NOTHING, other than the wealth of politicians and countries who beg us for money. THAT was the purpose of the Paris Accord... the ONLY purpose.

Funny... when the government no longer pays for bogus money-grabbing data, the truth comes out.

"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."


"And we're like... the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change..."

AOC's Top Aide Admits Green New Deal About The Economy, Not Climate
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aocs-top-aide-admits-green-new-deal-
about-the-economy-not-the-climate

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff recently admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a "how-do-you-change-the-entire
economy thing" -- a remark likely to fuel Republican claims that the deal is nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal
is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all," Saikat Chakrabarti said in May, according to The Washington Post.

*****

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/

*****

"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/

*****

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/

*****

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

*****

United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
Alan
2025-02-22 02:29:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 22:49:14 -0700, Gronk says...
Post by Gronk
https://www.the-express.com/news/politics/164071/donald-trump-
golf-us-president
Donald Trump has been criticized for "working a part-time job"
as a viral Trump Golf Tracker suggests he has spent nearly a
quarter of his days since his January 20 inauguration on the
golf course.
Climate change: The Panama community that fled its drowning island
Lie.
Norwegian "Miljødirektoratet" and BBC Pushes Sea Level Hysteria,
Ignores Real Causes of Panamanian Island Relocation
https://climatechangedispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/bbc-
headline.jpg
A propaganda site if ever there was one.
Post by AlleyCat
The BBC's recent article "Climate change: The Panama community that
fled its drowning island, " claims that rising sea levels are
swallowing the island of Cartí Sugdupu in Panama due to climate
change. This is false. [emphasis, links added]
The reality is that the island's inhabitants are NOT BEING FORCED TO
RELOCATE BECAUSE OF RISING OCEANS, but due to overcrowding, poor
infrastructure, and a lack of resources-issues that have NOTHING TO
DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.
Hmmmm...

Do you supposed that when sea levels rise that might reduce the
available area of a low-lying island?

With less living area, what do you get, hmm?
Post by AlleyCat
Furthermore, real-world examples and peer-reviewed research
contradict the idea that small islands are disappearing due to
rising seas. Instead, many islands are growing, adapting, and
naturally shifting over time.
'Their homes flooded on a regular basis, and the government expects that
by 2050, Carti Sugtupu will be completely under water, along with
several other islands in the archipelago of 350, only 49 of them inhabited.'
tye syding
2025-02-22 17:14:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
Alan
2025-02-22 19:57:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-22 20:05:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Chris Ahlstrom
2025-02-22 20:18:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
--
A chronic disposition to inquiry deprives domestic felines of vital qualities.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-22 20:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
That has occurred, largely due to thermal expansion on the sea floor =
thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism.

Active periods see a rise, then subsidence to normal.

Glacial melt is a longer term slow rise.
Alan
2025-02-22 20:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
That has occurred, largely due to thermal expansion on the sea floor =
thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism.
Active periods see a rise, then subsidence to normal.
Glacial melt is a longer term slow rise.
Where are you getting your ideas from, doofus?

"Active periods" when referring to "thermal vents, plate boundaries,
volcanism"?

Those are all continually occurring. There aren't "active periods" and
"inactive periods".
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-22 20:45:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:44:01 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
That has occurred, largely due to thermal expansion on the sea
floor = thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism.
Active periods see a rise, then subsidence to normal.
Glacial melt is a longer term slow rise.
Where are you getting your ideas from, doofus?
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Post by Alan
"Active periods" when referring to "thermal vents, plate boundaries,
volcanism"?
Those are all continually occurring. There aren't "active periods"
and "inactive periods".
Wrong!

"Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean
is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the
same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or
less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence,
upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in
land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the
compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers."
Alan
2025-02-22 20:49:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:44:01 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
That has occurred, largely due to thermal expansion on the sea
floor = thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism.
Active periods see a rise, then subsidence to normal.
Glacial melt is a longer term slow rise.
Where are you getting your ideas from, doofus?
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Post by Alan
"Active periods" when referring to "thermal vents, plate boundaries,
volcanism"?
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Those are all continually occurring. There aren't "active periods"
and "inactive periods".
Wrong!
"Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean
is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the
same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or
less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence,
upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in
land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the
compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers."
Where does it say anything about "active periods" of ANYTHING, doofus?

You were talking about glacial melt and for some incomprehensible reason
were trying to claim it was due to an "active period" of "thermal vents,
plate boundaries, volcanism"
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-22 22:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:49:09 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:44:01 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
That has occurred, largely due to thermal expansion on the sea
floor = thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism.
Active periods see a rise, then subsidence to normal.
Glacial melt is a longer term slow rise.
Where are you getting your ideas from, doofus?
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Post by Alan
"Active periods" when referring to "thermal vents, plate
boundaries, volcanism"?
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Those are all continually occurring. There aren't "active periods"
and "inactive periods".
Wrong!
"Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the
ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not
changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific
locations may be more or less than the global average due to many
local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion,
regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the
land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age
glaciers."
Where does it say anything about "active periods" of ANYTHING, doofus?
You were talking about glacial melt and for some incomprehensible
reason were trying to claim it was due to an "active period" of
"thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism"
https://earthsky.org/earth/volcano-under-pine-island-glacier-worlds-fastest-melting/

By tracing the glacial meltwater produced by the CDW, the researchers
discovered a volcanic signal that stood out in their data. The helium
measurements utilized were expressed by the percent deviation of the
observed data from the atmospheric ratio. For the observed CDW in the
Weddell Sea, this deviation was 10.2 percent. In the Ross and Amundsen
Seas, it was 10.9 percent. However, HE-3 values gathered by the team
during expeditions to the Pine Island Bay in 2007 and 2014 differed
from the historical data.

For this data, the percent deviation was considerably higher at 12.3 percent, with the highest values being near the strongest meltwater outflow from the PIG’s front. Additionally, these high helium values coincided with raised neon concentrations, which are usually an indication of melted glacial ice. The helium was also not uniformly distributed. This suggests it originated from a distinct meltwater source and not from across the PIG’s entire front.

With this knowledge in hand, the team of scientists endeavored to
identify the source of the HE-3 production. The Earth’s mantle is the
largest source of HE-3, although it is also produced in the atmosphere
and during past atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons through tritium
decay. These two sources, however, could only account for 0.2 percent
of the 2014 data.


The researchers then considered another source: a volcano beneath the PIG itself, where He-3 escapes from the mantle in a process known as magma degassing. The He-3 could be transported by glacial meltwater to the PIG’s grounding line, where the ice meets the underlying bedrock. At this line, the ice shifts due to the ocean tides, allowing the meltwater and the He-3 to be discharged into the ocean.

After identifying a subglacial volcano as the most likely source of the elevated He-3 levels near the PIG’s front, the scientists next calculated the heat released by the volcano in joules per kilogram of sea water at the front of the glacier. It turned out that the heat given off by the volcano constitutes a very small fraction of the overall mass loss of the PIG compared to the CDW, according to Loose.

In total, the volcanic heat was 32 ± 12 joules kg-1, while the heat content of the CDW was much larger at 12 kilojoules kg-1. Nevertheless, if the volcanic heat is intermittent and/or concentrated over a small surface area, it could still have an impact on the overall stability of the PIG by changing its subsurface conditions, said Loose. There is also the possibility that the continued melting of the PIG could lessen the pressure and weight on the volcano, spurring more volcanism and subsequent melting.

https://www.nsf.gov/news/seismic-study-reveals-key-reason-patagonia-rising

Scientists at Washington University in St. Louis, led by seismologist Douglas Wiens, recently completed one of the first seismic studies of the Patagonian Andes. In the journal Geophysical Research Letters, they describe and map out local subsurface dynamics.

"Variations in the size of glaciers as they grow and shrink, combined with the mantle structure we've imaged in this study, are driving rapid and spatially variable uplift in this region," said Hannah Mark of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the first author of the publication.

The seismic data Mark and Wiens analyzed reveal that a gap in the down-going tectonic plate about 60 miles beneath Patagonia has enabled hotter, less viscous mantle material to flow underneath South America.

Above this gap, the icefields have been shrinking, removing weight that previously caused the continent to flex downward. The scientists found very low seismic velocity within and around the gap, as well as a thinning of the rigid lithosphere overlying the gap.

These mantle conditions are driving many of the recent changes observed
in Patagonia, including the rapid uplift in certain areas once covered
by ice.

The ongoing movement of land -- known as glacial isostatic adjustment – matters, among other reasons, because it affects predictions for sea level rise under future climate warming scenarios.

Mark said that one of the most interesting things discovered in this study was that the hottest and least viscous parts of the mantle were found in the region of the gap, or slab window, below the part of the Patagonia icefields that most recently opened up.
Alan
2025-02-22 23:08:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500 Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800 Alan <nuh-
Post by Alan
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800 Alan <nuh-
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a
yearly cycle?
That has occurred, largely due to thermal expansion on the
sea floor = thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism.
Active periods see a rise, then subsidence to normal.
Glacial melt is a longer term slow rise.
Where are you getting your ideas from, doofus?
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Post by Alan
"Active periods" when referring to "thermal vents, plate
boundaries, volcanism"?
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Those are all continually occurring. There aren't "active
periods"
and "inactive periods".
Wrong!
"Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of
the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is
not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at
specific locations may be more or less than the global average
due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control,
erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and
whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight
of Ice Age glaciers."
Where does it say anything about "active periods" of ANYTHING, doofus?
You were talking about glacial melt and for some incomprehensible
reason were trying to claim it was due to an "active period" of
"thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism"
https://earthsky.org/earth/volcano-under-pine-island-glacier-worlds-
fastest-melting/
Once again, you bury the paragraph that doesn't agree with what you want:

'The main driver of this rapid loss of ice is the thinning of the PIG
from below by warming ocean waters due to climate change. '
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 00:03:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:08:56 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500 Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800 Alan <nuh-
Post by Alan
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800 Alan <nuh-
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a
yearly cycle?
That has occurred, largely due to thermal expansion on the
sea floor = thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism.
Active periods see a rise, then subsidence to normal.
Glacial melt is a longer term slow rise.
Where are you getting your ideas from, doofus?
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Post by Alan
"Active periods" when referring to "thermal vents, plate
boundaries, volcanism"?
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Those are all continually occurring. There aren't "active periods"
and "inactive periods".
Wrong!
"Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of
the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is
not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at
specific locations may be more or less than the global average
due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control,
erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and
whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight
of Ice Age glaciers."
Where does it say anything about "active periods" of ANYTHING, doofus?
You were talking about glacial melt and for some incomprehensible
reason were trying to claim it was due to an "active period" of
"thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism"
https://earthsky.org/earth/volcano-under-pine-island-glacier-worlds-
fastest-melting/
'The main driver of this rapid loss of ice is the thinning of the PIG
from below by warming ocean waters due to climate change. '
There are several drivers, once again you can't cope with that.
Alan
2025-02-23 00:09:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:08:56 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500 Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800 Alan <nuh-
Post by Alan
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800 Alan <nuh-
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a
yearly cycle?
That has occurred, largely due to thermal expansion on the
sea floor = thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism.
Active periods see a rise, then subsidence to normal.
Glacial melt is a longer term slow rise.
Where are you getting your ideas from, doofus?
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Post by Alan
"Active periods" when referring to "thermal vents, plate
boundaries, volcanism"?
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Those are all continually occurring. There aren't "active periods"
and "inactive periods".
Wrong!
"Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of
the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is
not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at
specific locations may be more or less than the global average
due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control,
erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and
whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight
of Ice Age glaciers."
Where does it say anything about "active periods" of ANYTHING, doofus?
You were talking about glacial melt and for some incomprehensible
reason were trying to claim it was due to an "active period" of
"thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism"
https://earthsky.org/earth/volcano-under-pine-island-glacier-worlds-
fastest-melting/
'The main driver of this rapid loss of ice is the thinning of the PIG
from below by warming ocean waters due to climate change. '
There are several drivers, once again you can't cope with that.
I can cope with it fine.

YOU apparently can't deal with the fact that your own source says
something other than what you want it to say.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 18:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:22:48 -0800
The claim is it rises an eighth of inch each year without
resetting. That means monotonic.
Please argue that with NASA, their data, their claim.
Both Can be true simultaneously.
we do not see new islands,
Then "we" needs some reality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_created_since_the_20th_century

Below is a list of new islands created since the beginning of the 20th century by volcanism, erosion, glacial retreat, or other mechanisms. One of the most famous new volcanic islands is the small island of Surtsey, located in the Atlantic Ocean south of Iceland. It first emerged from the ocean surface in 1963. Two years later, Surtsey was declared a nature reserve for the study of ecological succession; plants, insects, birds, seals, and other forms of life have since established themselves on the island.

Another noted new island is Anak Krakatau (the so-called "child of Krakatoa", which formed in the flooded caldera of that notorious volcano in Indonesia), which emerged only in 1930. Ample rainforests have grown there, although they are often destroyed by frequent eruptions. A population of many wild animals, including insects, birds, humanborne rats, and even monitor lizards, have also settled there.

Didicas Volcano off the northern coast of Luzon Island in the Philippines, was first created during a four-year eruption from 1856 to 1860 but eventually got washed away. In 1900, three tall rock masses were left by another eruption. During the 1952 eruption, the island finally became permanent which was further bolstered by subsequent eruptions in 1969 and 1978 into a 228 metres (748 ft)-high island.[1]

Uunartoq Qeqertoq is an island off the east coast of Greenland that appeared to have split from the mainland because of glacial retreat between 2002 and 2005; however, it is believed to have been a true island, with or without glacial covering, for many thousands of years.

In February and March 2009, a vigorous eruption created a new island[2] near Hunga Ha'apai in the Tongan Islands of the southwest Pacific. By the end of the activity, however, the new land mass was connected to Hunga Ha'apai.[3] Similar activity occurred again in December 2014 and January 2015. The island has been re-separated after most of the mass of Hunga Ha'apai was destroyed during the massive 2022 eruption.

On September 24, 2013 a new island named Zalzala Koh emerged off the coast of Gwadar, as a result of a strong earthquake that hit south and southwest Pakistan measuring 7.8 on the Richter magnitude scale.[4]

On November 21, 2013 an unnamed islet emerged off the coast of Nishinoshima, a small, uninhabited island in the Ogasawara chain, which is also known as the Bonin Islands. Less than four days after the new islet's emergence, it was about 200 metres (660 ft) in diameter.[5]

In November 2023, a new island formed as a result of volcanic activity off the coast of Iwo Jima, reaching a diameter of 100 meters.[6]

In December 2011 an island was formed in the Zubair Group as a result of volcanic activity but got eroded away in February 2015, another island which surfaced formed in September 2013 which was named Jadid island, where as the one the formed in 2011 was named sholan island
oceanic expansion into rifts
https://www.centraloregondaily.com/archives/central-oregon-daily/sea-floor-leak-found-off-oregon-could-increase-chance-of-the-big-one/article_44a4087d-1165-5eaf-8485-b515067e1845.html

A leak "in" the ocean off the coast of Oregon may sound crazy, but that's basically what this is. And it could increase the chance of "the big one" happening.

Deep underground chemicals are being released from a place scientists are calling Pythia's Oasis. It's about 50 miles offshore from Newport.

It's also in the Cascadia Subduction Zone, an area known for
earthquakes and tsunamis that runs from Vancouver Island all the way to
Northern California. And it's where scientists fear the next big one
could come from.
oceans closed off and evaporating on a yearly basis.
WTF?

https://www.quora.com/Why-hasent-the-ocean-evaporated-Normal-water-evaporates-over-time-yet-why-hasent-the-ocean-evaporated-over-billions-of-years

"The oceans have evaporated. In fact since the oceans formed something
like 4 billion years ago they have probably evaporated several thousand
times. So where does all this evaporated water go you ask. You did ask
or did you just think it ceased to exist or vanished into space?

What I am sure you must know is that the water goes into the air as water vapour. As it cools at higher altitudes it cools and forms liquid water droplets making clouds and then it rains and all that water comes back to earth and eventually back into the oceans.

So the rate at which rain falls on the planet exactly matches the rate
of evaporation from the surface of the oceans, and ground, plants,
lakes, marshes, rivers etc. So as the oceans are constantly evaporating
they are being topped up at the same rate and the level stays constant.


The ocean does evaporate. All the time. Water evaporates from the surface of the ocean. When it reaches higher altitudes where the air is cooler, it condenses back into water drops which you can see as clouds. When it cools still further, the drops join and when they become too heavy they fall as rain.

As you might expect, where the surface of the ocean is warmer, in the
tropics, more water evaporates. This leads to a lot of water in the air
and sometimes enough to create tropical storms and hurricanes."



Just stop humiliating yourself like this, meth whore.
Governor Swill
2025-02-23 00:05:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
That has occurred, largely due to thermal expansion on the sea floor =
thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism.
And increased water temperature due to planetary warming.
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Active periods see a rise, then subsidence to normal.
There isn't enough volcanic heat on the planet to raise ocean temp by one
degree. Those thermal vents have been around, literally, forever. It's not as
if they suddenly started a few decades ago.
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Glacial melt is a longer term slow rise.
The glaciers used to be growing. Now they're melting.

You do the math.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 00:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:05:24 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
That has occurred, largely due to thermal expansion on the sea floor
= thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism.
And increased water temperature due to planetary warming.
Volcanism does that in the short term.
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Active periods see a rise, then subsidence to normal.
There isn't enough volcanic heat on the planet to raise ocean temp by
one degree. Those thermal vents have been around, literally,
forever. It's not as if they suddenly started a few decades ago.
Activity keyed to solar flares is way up now.
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Glacial melt is a longer term slow rise.
The glaciers used to be growing. Now they're melting.
You do the math.
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere.
AlleyCat
2025-02-23 00:50:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:40:51 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere
But as your own source confirmed the "vast majority" are melting.
So?

And?

Prove man is responsible.

=====

Canada:

'Worst In The World': Here Are All The Rankings In Which Canada Is Now Last

Most Unaffordable Housing, Highest Cell phone Bills And Worst Rate of Acute Care Beds, To Name A Few

If you spend any time on social media, it's likely that you've seen this
graphic compiled by columnist Stephen Lautens that assembles 11 international
indices which feature Canada near the top spot. "Canada is broken? I don't
think so. Neither does the world," reads a caption.

Next time someone rants on how about how "broken" Canada is; or how badly we
are doing on the international stage... share some facts.

Numbers don't lie, Felicia.

https://archive.is/o/LnFRL/https://twitter.com/DIGuideBradley/status/1554545079314010112

Naturally, it only tells a partial picture. While Canada may dominate abstract
indices such as "quality of life" and "peace," there are plenty of far more
empirical indicators in which we measurably rank as among the worst in the
developed world.

There's plenty to like about Canada, but below is a not-at-all comprehensive
list of all the ways in which we are indeed very broken.

WE HAVE THE MOST UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE OECD

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is essentially a
club of the world's 38 most developed countries. And when these 38 are ranked
against each other for housing unaffordability, Canada emerges as the clear
champion. OECD analysts rank affordability by comparing average home prices to
average incomes, and according to their latest quarterly rankings Canada was
No. 1 for salaries that were most out of whack with the cost of a home.

Housing by price to income ratio for the second quarter of 2022. That's Canada
on the extreme right.

https://archive.is/LnFRL/840da40d6fa3b7fef6fcccdfc1637d24e0786760.webp

WE HAVE THE WORLD'S MOST EXPENSIVE WIRELESS COSTS

Every year, the Finnish telecom analyst Rewheel ranks the world's most
expensive countries for wireless services. And last year, Canada once again
dominated. Across several metrics, Canada was found to be the most expensive
place in the world for mobile data. Analysts found that it would cost the
average Canadian the equivalent of at least 100 Euros to obtain a cell phone
plan with at least 100 gigabytes of mobile data. Across much of the EU, that
kind of cell phone plan could be had for less than 40 Euros.

https://archive.is/LnFRL/822bcfe750687b1ef6288ee7df5606fd15629289.webp

Canadian telecoms charge more than 10 times as much for 100 gigabytes of mobile
data as companies in France or Ireland.

Canadian telecoms charge more than 10 times as much for 100 gigabytes of mobile
data as companies in France or Ireland. Photo by Rewheel

WE HAVE THE LOWEST RATE OF ACUTE CARE BEDS AMONG PEER COUNTRIES

Canada's health system was particularly walloped by COVID-19 due to the simple
fact that most of our hospitals are at the breaking point even in good times.
Multiple times during the pandemic, provinces were forced into shutdown by
rates of COVID that had barely been noticed in better-prepared countries. A
ranking by the Canadian Institute for Health Information provides one clue as
to why. When ranked against peer countries, Canada's rate of per-capita acute
care beds was in last place, albeit tied with Sweden. Canada has two acute care
beds for every 1,000 people, against 3.1 in France and six in Germany.

TWO OF THE PLANET'S "BUBBLIEST" REAL ESTATE MARKETS ARE IN CANADA

For at least 15 years now, Canada has been a regular contender on rankings of
overheated housing markets. And the latest UBS index of world cities with
"bubbly" real estate markets is no exception. In their 2021 index, Toronto was
second only to Frankfurt in terms of bubble risk, while Vancouver ranked sixth.
Aside from Germany, Canada was the only country that saw two of its cities in
the top ten.

https://archive.is/LnFRL/1961e904e18e8cb533ff42c2eae7beb611827bd4.webp

Only two cities in the entire Western Hemisphere qualified as likely "bubble
risks," and they're both in Canada.

Only two cities in the entire Western Hemisphere qualified as likely "bubble
risks," and they're both in Canada. Photo by UBS Global Real Estate Bubble
Index 2021

WE RACKED UP COVID DEBT FASTER THAN ANYONE ELSE

The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in the most feverish global accumulation of debt
in the history of human civilization. So it's rather remarkable that amidst
this international monsoon of debt, Canada still managed to out-debt everyone
else. Last year, analysts at Bloomberg tracked each country's rate of public
and private debt accumulated during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Canada came in with an overall debt burden equivalent to 352 per cent of GDP.
While a handful of countries (Japan, France and Hong Kong) came out of the
pandemic with higher overall debt burdens, Canada outranked all of them when it
came to how quickly that debt had been accumulated.

Containers on rail cars waiting to be shipped east by rail at the Port of
Vancouver Tuesday, June 21, 2022. Photo by (Photo by Jason Payne/ PNG)

https://archive.is/LnFRL/5b7e25218f55d343b998db94c6748b57312dafaf.webp

THE PORT OF VANCOUVER IS (ALMOST) THE MOST INEFFICIENT IN THE WORLD

Last year - just as the global supply chain crisis got going - the World Bank
decided to rank the performance of the world's 370 major ports. Authors weighed
factors such as how long the ports kept ships waiting, and how long crews took
to unload a vessel. And when everything was added together, the Port of
Vancouver ranked 368 out of 370. The only places with worse scores were the
Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. And it's not like our other
ports are much better. If Vancouver is too gummed up, you can always sail north
to Prince Rupert, which ranks 339 out of 370.

https://archive.is/LnFRL/ac861be6fb2f37d1463e7670c232b5cd548d5395.webp

Take that, Los Angeles and Long Beach. Photo by World Bank Group


Queues at Toronto Pearson International Airport. Photo by Peter J.
Thompson/National Post

https://archive.is/LnFRL/b32f7be38081069e5e696a0029996f6f3adaa760.webp

TORONTO PEARSON IS THE WORLD'S MOST-DELAYED AIRPORT

Flight delays are another category in which basically the entire world is
feeling the pinch. And yet, Canada still managed to outdo all of them. Last
month, CNN used data from the website FlightAware to figure out which airports
were seeing the highest rates of flight delays. In the number one spot was
Toronto Pearson, with 52 per cent of all flights out of the airport
experiencing some kind of delay. And it was a commanding lead; the second-place
finisher, Frankfurt, only managed to see 45.4 per cent of its flights delayed.
Toronto was also a contender in flight cancellations; with 6.9 per cent of its
scheduled flights never getting off the ground, it ranked fourth worst in the
world.

WE'RE ONE OF THE WORLD'S WORST ECONOMIES FOR FOREIGN INVESTMENT

A 2020 study out of the University of Calgary tracked foreign investment flows
into a cross-section of developed countries between 2015 and 2019. Virtually
every country on the list saw a surge in foreign cash during that period;
Ireland topped out the ranking thanks to its foreign investment climbing by
more than 115 per cent. Only four countries actually saw a reduction in foreign
investment: Mexico, Brazil, Australia and Canada. A report by the Business
Council of Canada noticed the same trend. "Canada is the second-worst in the
OECD on openness to foreign direct investment," it concluded.

https://archive.is/LnFRL/222c5fba154990485338650dcb55e413d85e080c.webp

WE DRIVE THE MOST FUEL-INEFFICIENT VEHICLES IN THE WORLD

In 2019, the International Energy Agency examined the fuel economy of the
world's private car fleets. On almost every measure, Canada led the pack in
driving unnecessarily huge, gas-guzzling vehicles. Per kilometre driven, the
average Canadian burned more fuel and emitted more carbon dioxide than anyone
else. Canadian cars were also the largest and (second only to the U.S.) the
heaviest. While it would be convenient to blame this on Canada being a sparse,
cold country with lots of heavy industry, our ranking was well beyond plenty of
other countries where that was similarly the case.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 18:36:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 18:50:10 -0600
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:40:51 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere
But as your own source confirmed the "vast majority" are melting.
So?
And?
Prove man is responsible.
We prolly caused the Hunga Tonga eruption too, in his atrophied mind...

https://judithcurry.com/2024/07/05/hunga-tonga-volcano-impact-on-record-warming/
Tonga volcano prime suspect

Just over a year before the abrupt warming, in January 2022, an extremely unusual volcanic eruption took place in Tonga. How unusual? It was an eruption of VEI 5 explosivity, capable of reaching the stratosphere, which occurs on average every 10 years.

Screen Shot 2024-07-05 at 10.03.01 AM

Figure 12. Time and cone elevation of VEI ≥5 volcanic eruptions of the past 200 years, their distribution by altitude (yellow bars), and the suggested depth for a submarine eruption capable of projecting a large amount of water to the stratosphere (red line).

There have been a number of eruptions with VEI 5 or higher in the last 200 years, although not all of them have affected the global climate. This figure shows with dots the date they occurred and the elevation at which the volcanic cone was located. The yellow bars show the distribution of eruptions in 500 m elevation bins. The Tonga eruption was a submarine explosion at very shallow depths, about 150 m below the sea surface. It ejected 150 million tons of water into the stratosphere.

In our 200 years of records there is only one other submarine eruption with VEI 5, which occurred in 1924 off the Japanese island of Iriomote at a depth of 200 m and did not affect the atmosphere. Only surface effects were observed. NASA scientists believe that the Tonga explosion occurred at the right depth to project a lot of water into the stratosphere.[vi] This depth is indicated by the red line. So, the Tonga eruption is a once in 200-year event, probably less than once in a millennium. Science was very lucky. We are not so lucky.

We know that strong volcanic eruptions, capable of reaching the stratosphere, can have a very strong effect on the climate for a few years, and that this effect can be delayed by more than a year. The eruption of Mount Tambora in April 1815 had a global effect on the climate, but it took 15 months for the effect to develop, during the year without a summer of 1816. These delayed effects coincided with the appearance of a veil of sulfate aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere due to seasonal changes in the global stratospheric circulation.

Screen Shot 2024-07-05 at 10.03.38 AM

Figure 13. Stratospheric water vapor anomaly at 45°N.

In this image on the vertical axis, we observe the water vapor anomaly in the stratosphere between 15 and 40 km altitude with ocher tones for negative values and greenish for positive ones. The measurement takes place at 45° latitude in the northern hemisphere. On the horizontal axis is the date, and we can see that the large anomaly created by the Tonga eruption does not appear in the Northern Hemisphere until one year later, in 2023, when the warming occurred. Thus, there are dynamical events in the stratosphere that have the appropriate time lag to coincide with the abrupt warming in 2023.

Because the Tonga eruption is unprecedented, there is much about its effects that we do not understand. But we do know that the planetary greenhouse effect is very sensitive to changes in stratospheric water vapor because, unlike the troposphere, the stratosphere is very dry and far from greenhouse saturation.

As a group of scientists showed in 2010, the effect of changes in stratospheric water vapor is so important that the warming between 2000 and 2009 was reduced by 25% because it decreased by 10%.[vii] And after the Tonga eruption, it increased by 10% because of the 150 million tons of water released into the stratosphere, so we could have experienced much of the warming of an entire decade in a single year.

Screen Shot 2024-07-05 at 10.04.30 AM

Figure 14. Global water vapor anomaly above 68hPa.

The stratosphere has already begun to dry out again, but it is a slow process that will take many years. In 2023 only 20 million tons of water returned to the troposphere, 13%.[viii]

7. Dismissing natural warming

On the one hand, we have an absolutely unprecedented abrupt warming that the models cannot explain and that has scientists scratching their heads. Such anomalous warming cannot logically respond to the usual suspects, El Niño, reduced sulfur emissions, or increased CO₂, which have been going on for many decades.

On the other hand, we have an absolutely unprecedented volcanic eruption, the effects of which we cannot know, but which, according to what we know about the greenhouse effect, should cause significant and abrupt warming.

Of course, we cannot conclude that the warming was caused by the volcano, but it is clear that it is by far the most likely suspect, and any other candidate should have to demonstrate its ability to act abruptly with such magnitude before being seriously considered.

So why do scientists like Gavin Schmidt argue, without evidence or knowledge, that the Tonga volcano could not have been responsible? If the effect were cooling, the volcano would be blamed without a second’s hesitation, but significant natural warming undermines the message that warming is the fault of our emissions.
Governor Swill
2025-02-23 03:54:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:05:24 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
That has occurred, largely due to thermal expansion on the sea floor
= thermal vents, plate boundaries, volcanism.
And increased water temperature due to planetary warming.
Volcanism does that in the short term.
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Active periods see a rise, then subsidence to normal.
There isn't enough volcanic heat on the planet to raise ocean temp by
one degree. Those thermal vents have been around, literally,
forever. It's not as if they suddenly started a few decades ago.
Activity keyed to solar flares is way up now.
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Glacial melt is a longer term slow rise.
The glaciers used to be growing. Now they're melting.
You do the math.
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere.
The southern hemisphere is all water, little land and little industry. The two
hemispheres aren't comparable.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 19:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:54:14 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
The southern hemisphere is all water, little land and little
industry. The two hemispheres aren't comparable.
One planet - 2 hemispheres.

GlowBull warming requires both.

Ya moronic dwarf.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 18:32:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:40:51 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Governor Swill
The glaciers used to be growing. Now they're melting.
You do the math.
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere
But as your own source confirmed the "vast majority" are melting.
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere.
Alan
2025-02-23 18:49:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:40:51 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Governor Swill
The glaciers used to be growing. Now they're melting.
You do the math.
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere
But as your own source confirmed the "vast majority" are melting.
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere.
But you agree the "vast majority" of glaciers worldwide are shrinking.

That's what your source said, right?
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 19:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:21 -0800
Post by Alan
But you agree the "vast majority" of glaciers worldwide are shrinking.
For now, yes.

That will rapidly change in the near future.
Alan
2025-02-23 20:09:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:21 -0800
Post by Alan
But you agree the "vast majority" of glaciers worldwide are shrinking.
For now, yes.
That will rapidly change in the near future.
Well this is progress.

After half a dozen tries, you finally admitted an obvious fact.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 21:28:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 12:09:42 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:21 -0800
Post by Alan
But you agree the "vast majority" of glaciers worldwide are
shrinking.
For now, yes.
That will rapidly change in the near future.
Well this is progress.
After half a dozen tries, you finally admitted an obvious fact.
Yes, an ice age is in our rather near future.
Alan
2025-02-23 21:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 12:09:42 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:21 -0800
Post by Alan
But you agree the "vast majority" of glaciers worldwide are
shrinking.
For now, yes.
That will rapidly change in the near future.
Well this is progress.
After half a dozen tries, you finally admitted an obvious fact.
Yes, an ice age is in our rather near future.
You thinking the fact that the "vast majority" of glaciers around the
world are shrinking means there is an ice age in the "near future"?
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 22:01:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:55:02 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 12:09:42 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:21 -0800
Post by Alan
But you agree the "vast majority" of glaciers worldwide are shrinking.
For now, yes.
That will rapidly change in the near future.
Well this is progress.
After half a dozen tries, you finally admitted an obvious fact.
Yes, an ice age is in our rather near future.
You thinking the fact that the "vast majority" of glaciers around the
world are shrinking means there is an ice age in the "near future"?
One of the best indicators yet!

GlowBull 'warming' always lead to global cooling.

You know this to be true:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Climate change Thursday, 16 November, 2000, 17:16 GMT
Viewpoint: Get off warming bandwagon
Currents BBC
Changes in ocean currents may cause global warning
By Professor William M Gray of Colorado State University


As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that had taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this warming would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about such warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.

In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice age may not be far off.

Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is still in full swing.

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.

It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic.

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.
Siri Cruise
2025-02-23 22:04:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:21 -0800
Post by Alan
But you agree the "vast majority" of glaciers worldwide are
shrinking.
For now, yes.
That will rapidly change in the near future.
Well this is progress.
After half a dozen tries, you finally admitted an obvious fact.
Crust distribution and movement is asymmetric. Currently most of
the plate collisions are in the northern hemispheres. Collisions
push up mountains that are high enough to intercept moist winds
from the oceans. Plate movement is independent of the weather and
magnetic field. It is caused be random convection cells in the
mantle, below the weather and above the liquid iron.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 22:14:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 14:04:07 -0800
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:21 -0800
Post by Alan
But you agree the "vast majority" of glaciers worldwide are shrinking.
For now, yes.
That will rapidly change in the near future.
Well this is progress.
After half a dozen tries, you finally admitted an obvious fact.
Crust distribution and movement is asymmetric.
Non sequitur.
Post by Siri Cruise
Currently most of
the plate collisions are in the northern hemispheres.
Non sequitur.
Post by Siri Cruise
Collisions
push up mountains that are high enough to intercept moist winds
from the oceans.
When did that last occur?
Post by Siri Cruise
Plate movement is independent of the weather and
magnetic field.
Big old WRONGO!
Post by Siri Cruise
It is caused be random convection cells in the
mantle, below the weather and above the liquid iron.
Solar flaring is a KEY factor in plate activity, volcanism too.

It impacts the LLSVPs.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0012821X67900714

Solar activity, as indicated by sunspots, radio noise and geomagnetic
indices, plays a significant but by no means exclusive role in the
triggering of earthquakes. Maximum quake frequency occurs at times of
moderately high and fluctuating solar activity. Terrestrial solar flare
effects which are the actual coupling mechanisms which trigger quakes
appear to be either abrupt accelerations in the earth's angular
velocity or surges of telluric currents in the earth's crust.
Rudy Canoza
2025-02-23 19:01:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:40:51 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Governor Swill
The glaciers used to be growing. Now they're melting.
You do the math.
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere
But as your own source confirmed the "vast majority" are melting.
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere.
Yes, spammy, *all*, including the southern hemisphere.

South American Glaciers Melting Faster, Changing Sea Level
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/south-american-glaciers-melting-faster-changing-sea-level/

When fascists like spammy and AlleyPussyBitch blabber about global warming, they
lie — 100% of the time.
--
Every Republiscum/QAnon accusation is, in fact, a confession
Rudy Canoza
2025-02-23 23:11:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:40:51 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Governor Swill
The glaciers used to be growing. Now they're melting.
You do the math.
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere
But as your own source confirmed the "vast majority" are melting.
Not all, not in the southern hemisphere.
Yes, spammy, *all*, including the southern hemisphere.

South American Glaciers Melting Faster, Changing Sea Level
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/south-american-glaciers-melting-faster-changing-sea-level/

When fascists like spammy and AlleyPussyBitch blabber about global warming, they
lie — 100% of the time.
--
Every Republiscum/QAnon accusation is, in fact, a confession
Alan
2025-02-22 20:36:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
Let him think about it...
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-22 20:44:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:36:03 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
Let him think about it...
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion
caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and
increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets.

Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean
is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the
same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or
less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence,
upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in
land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the
compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.
Alan
2025-02-22 20:46:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:36:03 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
Let him think about it...
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion
caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and
increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets.
Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean
is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the
same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or
less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence,
upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in
land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the
compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.
From your own source, sunshine:

'Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate'
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-22 22:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:46:11 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:36:03 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
Let him think about it...
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion
caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and
increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets.
Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the
ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not
changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific
locations may be more or less than the global average due to many
local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion,
regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the
land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age
glaciers.
'Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate'
1/8 th inch per year - minimal.
Alan
2025-02-22 23:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:46:11 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:36:03 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
Let him think about it...
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion
caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and
increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets.
Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the
ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not
changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific
locations may be more or less than the global average due to many
local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion,
regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the
land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age
glaciers.
'Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate'
1/8 th inch per year - minimal.
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 00:05:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:11:09 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:46:11 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:36:03 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
Let him think about it...
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal
expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as
it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as
glaciers and ice sheets.
Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the
ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not
changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific
locations may be more or less than the global average due to many
local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion,
regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether
the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice
Age glaciers.
'Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate'
1/8 th inch per year - minimal.
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
I understand their stated "rate" is 1/8" per year.

No increases from that of late.
Alan
2025-02-23 00:10:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:11:09 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:46:11 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:36:03 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
Let him think about it...
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal
expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as
it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as
glaciers and ice sheets.
Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the
ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not
changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific
locations may be more or less than the global average due to many
local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion,
regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether
the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice
Age glaciers.
'Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate'
1/8 th inch per year - minimal.
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
I understand their stated "rate" is 1/8" per year.
No increases from that of late.
I know you'll break your noodle when you realize this, but:

There can never be an "increase" (or decrease) in a CURRENT rate.
Governor Swill
2025-02-23 03:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:11:09 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:46:11 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:36:03 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
Let him think about it...
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal
expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as
it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as
glaciers and ice sheets.
Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the
ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not
changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific
locations may be more or less than the global average due to many
local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion,
regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether
the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice
Age glaciers.
'Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate'
1/8 th inch per year - minimal.
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
I understand their stated "rate" is 1/8" per year.
State by who? Exxon or Vladimir?
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 19:29:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:54:57 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
I understand their stated "rate" is 1/8" per year.
State by who?
NASA
Alan
2025-02-23 19:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:54:57 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
I understand their stated "rate" is 1/8" per year.
State by who?
NASA
So, just to be clear, since you accept NASA as a reliable source on
this, if I show you where they say that the the rate of sea level rise
is increasing, you'll accept that that is factual as well...

...right?
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 21:24:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:48:03 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:54:57 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
I understand their stated "rate" is 1/8" per year.
State by who?
NASA
So,
Erratum - make that read NOAA.

Twas their data.
Alan
2025-02-23 21:55:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:48:03 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:54:57 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
I understand their stated "rate" is 1/8" per year.
State by who?
NASA
So,
Erratum - make that read NOAA.
Twas their data.
Same question.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 22:02:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:55:16 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:48:03 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:54:57 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
I understand their stated "rate" is 1/8" per year.
State by who?
NASA
So,
Erratum - make that read NOAA.
Twas their data.
Same question.
Already answered.
Alan
2025-02-23 22:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:55:16 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:48:03 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:54:57 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
I understand their stated "rate" is 1/8" per year.
State by who?
NASA
So,
Erratum - make that read NOAA.
Twas their data.
Same question.
Already answered.
Nope.

So I'll ask again:

So, just to be clear, since you accept NOAA as a reliable source on
this, if I show you where they say that the the rate of sea level rise
is increasing, you'll accept that that is factual as well...

...right?
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 22:08:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 14:04:40 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:55:16 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:48:03 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:54:57 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
I understand their stated "rate" is 1/8" per year.
State by who?
NASA
So,
Erratum - make that read NOAA.
Twas their data.
Same question.
Already answered.
Nope.
So, just to be clear, since you accept NOAA as a reliable source on
this,
Their reliability is undetermined.
Alan
2025-02-23 23:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 14:04:40 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:55:16 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:48:03 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:54:57 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
"at an increasing rate": do you understand what that means?
I understand their stated "rate" is 1/8" per year.
State by who?
NASA
So,
Erratum - make that read NOAA.
Twas their data.
Same question.
Already answered.
Nope.
So, just to be clear, since you accept NOAA as a reliable source on
this,
Their reliability is undetermined.
I see.

So you'll rely on what they say when you think it suits you...

...and deny it when it doesn't.

Got it.
Governor Swill
2025-02-23 00:12:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:46:11 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:36:03 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
Let him think about it...
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion
caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and
increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets.
Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the
ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not
changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific
locations may be more or less than the global average due to many
local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion,
regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the
land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age
glaciers.
'Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate'
1/8 th inch per year - minimal.
Which means that in eight years it will have risen an inch. And a century, over
a foot.

Since we know it's rising faster than that, we know your figure is wrong.
AlleyCat
2025-02-22 23:27:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:18:37 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom says...
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
Are you implying that the 1/8 rise then falls 1/8 in a yearly cycle?
That isn't at ALL what he implied.

He's exactly right.

Why do you suppose glacial melt has slowed down?

Because it was warmer most of the last 22,000 years than it is now.

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

https://i.imgur.com/MVBZzdZ.png

It's always that last inch that wipes out man and civilization, huh?

It COULDN'T have been the previous 4,723 inches, right?

=====

February:

US Cold Records Mount

Relentless Snow Slams Turkey

Big Accumulations Across Northern India

Japan Buried

Deep Freeze Grips Central Europe

Long-Standing Records Fall Across America

One Of Antarctica's Earliest -60c's On Record

Record Cold Czech Republic

Northern Hemisphere Snow Above Average

Japan's Resorts At 20+ Feet

Antarctica Nears -60c

Cold Records Begin Falling Across U.S.

Canada Breaks Long-Standing Benchmarks

Montreal's Historic Snowfall

Australia Cools

Drop In Albedo Hunga Tonga Hunga Hai"apai Causing Warming?

"Life-Threatening Cold" Enters The U.S.

Record February Cold Grips Australia

Poland To -41.1c (-42f)

Vostok At -57.4c (-71.3f)

Orilla On Brink Of Historic Snowfall Record

Japan's Snow Continues To Impress

Antarctica At -55.1c (-67.2f)

The Climate Racket Is Collapsing

Big Gains On Greenland

Antarctic Below -50c (-58f)

Records Fall Across The Northwest

Record Snow Destroys Japan's Apple Orchards

Cold Sends Romania's Gas Prices Soaring

"The Freezer Door Is About To Be Opened (Again!)"

Saudi Arabia's Rare Freeze

Japan's Record Snow Turns Deadly

America's Coldest January Since 1988

Record Uptick In Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent

Snow Records Continue To Fall Across Japan

Intense Freeze Sweeps S. Korea

MP's Rare Chill

Turkey's Record Gas Consumption Amid Big Freeze

Record Cold Grips B.C.

Arctic Blast To Wallop The U.S.

Heavy Snow Hits Iran

Himachal Pradesh Suffers Intense Lows/Snows

Rare Low-Elevation Flurries In Taiwan

Japan Ski Resort Surpasses 20 Feet

Antarctic Sea Ice Recovery: Climate Models In Crisis

Concordia At -48.5c (-55.3f)

Arctic Outbreak Round Two

New Nature Study: No Slow Down In Amoc

NOAA Data Practices Investigated

Global Temperatures Cool Significantly In January

Record Snows Persist In Japan

No Sea-Level Rise Since 1800s

Blizzards On Sakhalin

Finland Nears -40c (-40f)

Record February Cold Threatens Northern China

All-Time Snow Totals Sweep Japan

4 Feet In 3 Days Buries The Alps

Stable Temperatures In Greenland, Study Finds

Arctic Blast To Slam The U.S.

Sakhalin Blizzards

Scientists Say Global Warming Could Cool The UK

Snow In Japan Exceeds 17 Feet

Another "Polar Express" Looms For The U.S.

Cold Chokes Spanish Vegetables

NASA Removes Past Temperature Data
Alan
2025-02-22 20:35:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
You need to really think about what you just wrote.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-22 20:41:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:35:49 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
You need to really think about what you just wrote.
You need to understand (esp. as a canuck) that glaciers have been
retreating for some good time. It's a natural part of global climate
cycles.
Alan
2025-02-22 20:44:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:35:49 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
You need to really think about what you just wrote.
You need to understand (esp. as a canuck) that glaciers have been
retreating for some good time. It's a natural part of global climate
cycles.
That retreat has accelerated greatly over the last 100-150 years, doofus.

You get that people keep track of this stuff, right?
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-22 21:58:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:44:55 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:35:49 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
You need to really think about what you just wrote.
You need to understand (esp. as a canuck) that glaciers have been
retreating for some good time. It's a natural part of global climate
cycles.
That retreat has accelerated greatly over the last 100-150 years, doofus.
Except where it hasn't nitwit naysayer:

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2009/04/30/southern-glaciers-grow-out-of-step-with-north/

A new study in the journal Science puts this enigma in perspective; for the last 7,000 years New Zealand’s largest glaciers have often moved out of step with glaciers in the northern hemisphere, pointing to strong regional variations in climate.

Conventional wisdom holds that climate during the era of human
civilization has been relatively stable, but the new study is the
latest to challenge this view, by showing that New Zealand’s glaciers
have gone through rapid periods of growth and decline during the
current interglacial period known as the Holocene.
Post by Alan
You get that people keep track of this stuff, right?
https://principia-scientific.com/substantial-southern-hemisphere-cooling-being-observed/

https://www.wired.com/story/the-world-was-cooler-in-2021-than-2020-thats-not-good-news/

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-may-be-the-reasons-for-plummeting-of-global-temperature-on-earths-surface-by-2022
Alan
2025-02-22 22:02:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800 Alan <nuh-
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
You need to really think about what you just wrote.
You need to understand (esp. as a canuck) that glaciers have
been retreating for some good time. It's a natural part of
global climate cycles.
That retreat has accelerated greatly over the last 100-150 years, doofus.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2009/04/30/southern-glaciers-grow-
out-of-step-with-north/
A new study in the journal Science puts this enigma in perspective;
for the last 7,000 years New Zealand’s largest glaciers have often
moved out of step with glaciers in the northern hemisphere, pointing
to strong regional variations in climate.
Conventional wisdom holds that climate during the era of human
civilization has been relatively stable, but the new study is the
latest to challenge this view, by showing that New Zealand’s
glaciers have gone through rapid periods of growth and decline
during the current interglacial period known as the Holocene.
You left off the lead, summary paragraph (with emphasis by me):

'The VAST MAJORITY of the world’s glaciers are retreating as the planet
gets warmer. But a FEW, including ones south of the equator, in South
America and New Zealand, are inching forward.
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
You get that people keep track of this stuff, right?
https://principia-scientific.com/substantial-southern-hemisphere-
cooling-being-observed/
https://www.wired.com/story/the-world-was-cooler-in-2021-than-2020-
thats-not-good-news/
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-may-be-the-reasons-for-
plummeting-of-global-temperature-on-earths-surface-by-2022
Completely unresponsive to your own topic about glaciers...
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-22 22:29:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:02:36 -0800
Post by Alan
'The VAST MAJORITY of the world’s glaciers are retreating as the
planet gets warmer. But a FEW, including ones south of the equator,
in South America and New Zealand, are inching forward.
Yes they are.

And it's getting cooler too.
Alan
2025-02-22 23:10:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:02:36 -0800
Post by Alan
'The VAST MAJORITY of the world’s glaciers are retreating as the
planet gets warmer. But a FEW, including ones south of the equator,
in South America and New Zealand, are inching forward.
Yes they are.
And it's getting cooler too.
You realize that your "yes they are" covered this:

'The VAST MAJORITY of the world’s glaciers are retreating as the planet
gets warmer.'

...right?
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 00:04:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:10:27 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:02:36 -0800
Post by Alan
'The VAST MAJORITY of the world’s glaciers are retreating as the
planet gets warmer. But a FEW, including ones south of the equator,
in South America and New Zealand, are inching forward.
Yes they are.
And it's getting cooler too.
Cooler, yes.
Alan
2025-02-23 00:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:10:27 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:02:36 -0800
Post by Alan
'The VAST MAJORITY of the world’s glaciers are retreating as the
planet gets warmer. But a FEW, including ones south of the equator,
in South America and New Zealand, are inching forward.
Yes they are.
And it's getting cooler too.
Cooler, yes.
'The VAST MAJORITY of the world’s glaciers are retreating as the planet
gets warmer.'

Your source.
AlleyCat
2025-02-23 00:46:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:11:22 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Cooler, yes.
'The VAST MAJORITY of the world?s glaciers are retreating as the planet
gets warmer.'
Your source.
Does it also say man is the sole reason for these glacier's retreats?

https://i.imgur.com/rhBs4Qg.mp4

============================================================================

THIS Is Why Chicken Shit Chicken Littles Screech About Climate And Weather And Global Warbling:

The UN Makes it Official: Global Warming Hysteria Is All About Redistributing Wealth

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

Global Study Reveals Wealth Redistribution From Blue-Carbon Ecosystems

Failed Climate Policies Are About Wealth Redistribution

"We Redistribute De Facto The World's Wealth By Climate Policy."

How Global Warming Has Made The Rich Richer
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer

The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/?sh=4f89a2d429be

The Doha Wealth Redistribution Process Moves On
https://townhall.com/columnists/davidrothbard/2012/12/14/the-doha-wealth-redistribution-process-moves-on-n1465410

=====

"There is no doubt, that we need to have a complete transformation... the transformation of the economy, and that includes, of course, the private sector."

A carbon tax will change NOTHING, other than the wealth of politicians and countries who beg us for money. THAT was the purpose of the Paris Accord... the ONLY purpose.

Funny... when the government no longer pays for bogus money-grabbing data, the truth comes out.

"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."
http://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI

"And we're like... the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change..."

AOC's Top Aide Admits Green New Deal About The Economy, Not Climate
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aocs-top-aide-admits-green-new-deal-
about-the-economy-not-the-climate

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff recently admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a "how-do-you-change-the-entire
economy thing" -- a remark likely to fuel Republican claims that the deal is nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal
is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all," Saikat Chakrabarti said in May, according to The Washington Post.

*****

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/

*****

"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/

*****

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/

*****

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

*****

United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
Governor Swill
2025-02-23 03:57:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:10:27 -0800
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:02:36 -0800
'The VAST MAJORITY of the world’s glaciers are retreating as the
planet gets warmer. But a FEW, including ones south of the equator,
in South America and New Zealand, are inching forward.
Yes they are.
And it's getting cooler too.
'The VAST MAJORITY of the world’s glaciers are retreating as the planet
gets warmer.'
...right?
Cooler, yes.
Learn to read and write. You'll embarrass yourself less.
velvet shark byte
2025-02-23 19:30:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:57:06 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
Learn to read and write.
🌐
Reunion
reunion.com
› people search › ca › sacramento › jonathan › jonathan ball › profile
Jonathan Ball (David), 72 Public Records - Sacramento California
Jonathan Ball's birthday is 12/02/1952 and is 72 years old. Previously
cities included Pasadena CA and Altadena CA. Sometimes Jonathan goes by
various nicknames including Jonathan D Ball. For work these days,
Jonathan is a President at Ball Information Systens INC.

BALL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC
2030 JeffersonDr Pasadena CA 91104
JONATHAN BALL
REGISTERED AGENT
Since January 1987


BALL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
01/02/1987 Suspended - FTB/SOS
AlleyCat
2025-02-23 00:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:44:55 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:35:49 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:57:41 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by tye syding
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise
Can you predict when that is going to happen?
It is happening right now.
1/8th of an inch per year = normal glacial melt.
You need to really think about what you just wrote.
You need to understand (esp. as a canuck) that glaciers have been
retreating for some good time. It's a natural part of global climate
cycles.
That retreat has accelerated greatly over the last 100-150 years, doofus.
The "retreat" was even greater before the last 100-150 years.
Post by Alan
You get that people keep track of this stuff, right?
Yes... that's how we know you're full of shit.

PROVE it's man's fault.

Gahead... gahead... gahead... PLEASE say it's because of CO².

=====

February:

US Cold Records Mount

Relentless Snow Slams Turkey

Big Accumulations Across Northern India

Japan Buried

Deep Freeze Grips Central Europe

Long-Standing Records Fall Across America

One Of Antarctica's Earliest -60c's On Record

Record Cold Czech Republic

Northern Hemisphere Snow Above Average

Japan's Resorts At 20+ Feet

Antarctica Nears -60c

Cold Records Begin Falling Across U.S.

Canada Breaks Long-Standing Benchmarks

Montreal's Historic Snowfall

Australia Cools

Drop In Albedo Hunga Tonga Hunga Hai"apai Causing Warming?

"Life-Threatening Cold" Enters The U.S.

Record February Cold Grips Australia

Poland To -41.1c (-42f)

Vostok At -57.4c (-71.3f)

Orilla On Brink Of Historic Snowfall Record

Japan's Snow Continues To Impress

Antarctica At -55.1c (-67.2f)

The Climate Racket Is Collapsing

Big Gains On Greenland

Antarctic Below -50c (-58f)

Records Fall Across The Northwest

Record Snow Destroys Japan's Apple Orchards

Cold Sends Romania's Gas Prices Soaring

"The Freezer Door Is About To Be Opened (Again!)"

Saudi Arabia's Rare Freeze

Japan's Record Snow Turns Deadly

America's Coldest January Since 1988

Record Uptick In Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent

Snow Records Continue To Fall Across Japan

Intense Freeze Sweeps S. Korea

MP's Rare Chill

Turkey's Record Gas Consumption Amid Big Freeze

Record Cold Grips B.C.

Arctic Blast To Wallop The U.S.

Heavy Snow Hits Iran

Himachal Pradesh Suffers Intense Lows/Snows

Rare Low-Elevation Flurries In Taiwan

Japan Ski Resort Surpasses 20 Feet

Antarctic Sea Ice Recovery: Climate Models In Crisis

Concordia At -48.5c (-55.3f)

Arctic Outbreak Round Two

New Nature Study: No Slow Down In Amoc

NOAA Data Practices Investigated

Global Temperatures Cool Significantly In January

Record Snows Persist In Japan

No Sea-Level Rise Since 1800s

Blizzards On Sakhalin

Finland Nears -40c (-40f)

Record February Cold Threatens Northern China

All-Time Snow Totals Sweep Japan

4 Feet In 3 Days Buries The Alps

Stable Temperatures In Greenland, Study Finds

Arctic Blast To Slam The U.S.

Sakhalin Blizzards

Scientists Say Global Warming Could Cool The UK

Snow In Japan Exceeds 17 Feet

Another "Polar Express" Looms For The U.S.

Cold Chokes Spanish Vegetables

NASA Removes Past Temperature Data
Siri Cruise
2025-02-23 03:29:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:35:49 -0800
You need to understand (esp. as a canuck) that glaciers have been
retreating for some good time. It's a natural part of global
climate
cycles.
How long is a good time?
Post by Alan
That retreat has accelerated greatly over the last 100-150 years, doofus.
Does that correlate with anything else? Causation results in
correlation. Dampness of the street correlates to rainfall.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
Governor Swill
2025-02-23 03:58:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:35:49 -0800
You need to understand (esp. as a canuck) that glaciers have been
retreating for some good time. It's a natural part of global
climate
cycles.
How long is a good time?
All weekend.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 19:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:29:54 -0800
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:35:49 -0800
You need to understand (esp. as a canuck) that glaciers have been
retreating for some good time. It's a natural part of global climate
cycles.
How long is a good time?
Google is your friend.
Governor Swill
2025-02-23 03:12:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
You need to understand (esp. as a canuck) that glaciers have been
retreating for some good time. It's a natural part of global climate
cycles.
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.

What's happening now is great for Russia and Canada but pretty much sucks for
everybody else.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 18:44:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.

Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".

What happens when it hits zero?
Alan
2025-02-23 18:49:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.
Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".
What happens when it hits zero?
Cite that that's a fact.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 19:40:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:53 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.
Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".
What happens when it hits zero?
Cite that that's a fact.
Answer where the magnetosphere is now and why the measurements stopped
being shared.

Northern lights in the south much?
Alan
2025-02-23 20:10:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:53 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.
Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".
What happens when it hits zero?
Cite that that's a fact.
Answer where the magnetosphere is now and why the measurements stopped
being shared.
Northern lights in the south much?
I'm not the one making a claim, sunshine.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 21:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 12:10:19 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:53 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.
Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".
What happens when it hits zero?
Cite that that's a fact.
Answer where the magnetosphere is now and why the measurements
stopped being shared.
Northern lights in the south much?
I'm not the one making a claim, sunshine.
Not a claim - fact.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-the-northern-lights-are-being-seen-further-south

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-10880852

https://www.foxcarolina.com/page/why-are-the-northern-lights-moving-south/

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/northern-lights-why-were-they-visible-further-south-than-normal/5881243/
Alan
2025-02-23 21:57:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Post by Alan
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500 Governor Swill
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and
what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.
Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".
What happens when it hits zero?
Cite that that's a fact.
Answer where the magnetosphere is now and why the measurements
stopped being shared.
Northern lights in the south much?
I'm not the one making a claim, sunshine.
Not a claim - fact.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-the-northern-lights-are-being-
seen-further-south
Changes in the magnetosphere aren't mentioned.
Post by Mercy-a-lago
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-10880852
No mention of changes in the Earth's magnetic field.
Post by Mercy-a-lago
https://www.foxcarolina.com/page/why-are-the-northern-lights-moving-
south/
'The reason for that is an impending solar maximum.'
Post by Mercy-a-lago
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/northern-
lights-why-were-they-visible-further-south-than-normal/5881243/
'Why have there been so many solar storms lately?

Solar activity increases and decreases in a cycle that last about 11
years, astronomers say. The sun appears to be near the peak of that
cycle, known as a solar maximum.

In May, the sun shot out its biggest flare in almost two decades. That
came days after severe solar storms pummeled Earth and triggered auroras
in unaccustomed places across the Northern Hemisphere.

There will likely be more to come. Dahl said we remain “in the grip” of
the solar maximum and it isn't likely to start to fade until early 2026.

“We’re in for more of the experiences we had last night," he said.'

You lose.

Again.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 22:06:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:57:51 -0800
Post by Alan
Solar activity increases and decreases in a cycle that last about 11
years, astronomers say. The sun appears to be near the peak of that
cycle, known as a solar maximum.
Yet the primary reason we see these events heading south is the
weakening of the magnetosphere.

Most of these flares have been exponentially smaller than the famed
Carrington event.

They just meet a lot less resistance now.

30% less.
Alan
2025-02-23 23:29:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:57:51 -0800
Post by Alan
Solar activity increases and decreases in a cycle that last about 11
years, astronomers say. The sun appears to be near the peak of that
cycle, known as a solar maximum.
Yet the primary reason we see these events heading south is the
weakening of the magnetosphere.
Yet you have yet to produce anything that supports that claim.
Post by Mercy-a-lago
Most of these flares have been exponentially smaller than the famed
Carrington event.
They just meet a lot less resistance now.
30% less.
You don't even understand that without a magnetosphere at all, the
auroras wouldn't exist.

They exist because the magnet field of the earth concentrates the flow
of ions to the poles.

-hh
2025-02-23 20:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:53 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.
Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".
What happens when it hits zero?
Cite that that's a fact.
Answer where the magnetosphere is now and why the measurements stopped
being shared.
Northern lights in the south much?
The aurora borealis occurs in the Arctic,

The aurora australis occurs in Antarctica.


-hh
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 21:34:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 15:29:40 -0500
Post by -hh
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:53 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.
Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".
What happens when it hits zero?
Cite that that's a fact.
Answer where the magnetosphere is now and why the measurements
stopped being shared.
Northern lights in the south much?
The aurora borealis occurs in the Arctic,
The aurora australis occurs in Antarctica.
-hh
Your mentality occurs in shitbag liars, mostly.


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-the-northern-lights-are-being-seen-further-south

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-10880852

https://www.foxcarolina.com/page/why-are-the-northern-lights-moving-south/

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/northern-lights-why-were-they-visible-further-south-than-normal/5881243/
Siri Cruise
2025-02-23 21:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by -hh
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:53 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.
Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".
What happens when it hits zero?
Cite that that's a fact.
Answer where the magnetosphere is now and why the measurements stopped
being shared.
Northern lights in the south much?
The aurora borealis occurs in the Arctic,
The aurora australis occurs in Antarctica.
-hh
Aurora randomlis will appear everywhere and the magnetic field
becomes chaotic.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 21:55:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:49:47 -0800
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by -hh
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:49:53 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.
Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".
What happens when it hits zero?
Cite that that's a fact.
Answer where the magnetosphere is now and why the measurements stopped
being shared.
Northern lights in the south much?
The aurora borealis occurs in the Arctic,
The aurora australis occurs in Antarctica.
-hh
Aurora randomlis will appear everywhere and the magnetic field
becomes chaotic.
Already occurring:


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-the-northern-lights-are-being-seen-further-south

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-10880852

https://www.foxcarolina.com/page/why-are-the-northern-lights-moving-south/

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/northern-lights-why-were-they-visible-further-south-than-normal/5881243/
Siri Cruise
2025-02-23 21:45:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.
Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".
What happens when it hits zero?
Cite that that's a fact.
We are at the beginning of magnetic pole flip. The field strength
does not diminish: it becomes random as multiple poles pop out of
the core.

Pole shifts have nothing to do with weather. Geologic evidence
shows nothing.

The magnetosphere like the auroras is miles above the weather. It
might reduce solar wind erosion, while the mantle continues
outgassing.

The only effect people will see are auroras as far south as the
equator.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 21:53:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:45:44 -0800
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:12:39 -0500
Post by Governor Swill
There is a difference between natural climate cycles and what's happening now.
The magnetosphere is down over 30%.
Cite where that fluctuation is "natural".
What happens when it hits zero?
Cite that that's a fact.
We are at the beginning of magnetic pole flip.
No we're alot farther aloomng than that.
Post by Siri Cruise
The field strength
does not diminish: it becomes random as multiple poles pop out of
the core.
The south pole has split and now there is a south Atlantic anomaly.
Post by Siri Cruise
Pole shifts have nothing to do with weather. Geologic evidence
shows nothing.
That is your stupidest claim yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_pole_shift_hypothesis


In 1948, Hugh Auchincloss Brown, an electrical engineer, advanced a hypothesis of catastrophic pole shift. Brown also argued that accumulation of ice at the poles caused recurring tipping of the axis, identifying cycles of approximately seven millennia.[8][9]

Immanuel Velikovsky postulated that the planet Venus emerged from
Jupiter as a comet. During two proposed near-approaches in about 1450
BCE, he suggested that the direction of Earth's rotation was changed
radically, then reverted to its original direction on the next pass.
This disruption supposedly caused earthquakes, tsunamis, and the
parting of the Red Sea. Further, he said near misses by Mars between
776 and 687 BCE also caused Earth's axis to change back and forth by
ten degrees. Velikovsky cited historical records in support of his
work, although his studies were generally ridiculed by the scientific
community.
Post by Siri Cruise
The magnetosphere like the auroras is miles above the weather.
It is a real measure and casualty of the solar wind.
Post by Siri Cruise
It
might reduce solar wind erosion, while the mantle continues
outgassing.
That's gish gallop.
Post by Siri Cruise
The only effect people will see are auroras as far south as the
equator.
Guess where Antartica used to be located?

The equator.
JTEM
2025-02-22 20:43:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan
You need to really think about what you just wrote.
As you are an anal wart, perhaps you should avoid using words
you can't comprehend... "think," in this case.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-22 20:47:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:43:35 -0500
Post by JTEM
Post by Alan
You need to really think about what you just wrote.
As you are an anal wart, perhaps you should avoid using words
you can't comprehend... "think," in this case.
The strident naysayer act wore thin eons ago.
AlleyCat
2025-02-22 23:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise that might reduce the
available area of a low-lying island?
Not because of man.

Sea levels have been rising for the past 22,000 years and the last few millimetres are because of us?

Loading Image...

No.

=====

February:

Updated:

US Cold Records Mount

Relentless Snow Slams Turkey

Big Accumulations Across Northern India

Japan Buried

Deep Freeze Grips Central Europe

Long-Standing Records Fall Across America
One Of Antarctica's Earliest -60c's On Record
Record Cold Czech Republic
Northern Hemisphere Snow Above Average
Japan's Resorts At 20+ Feet
Antarctica Nears -60c
Cold Records Begin Falling Across U.S.
Canada Breaks Long-Standing Benchmarks
Montreal's Historic Snowfall
Australia Cools
Drop In Albedo Hunga Tonga Hunga Hai"apai Causing Warming?
"Life-Threatening Cold" Enters The U.S.
Record February Cold Grips Australia
Poland To -41.1c (-42f)
Vostok At -57.4c (-71.3f)
Orilla On Brink Of Historic Snowfall Record
Japan's Snow Continues To Impress
Antarctica At -55.1c (-67.2f)
The Climate Racket Is Collapsing
Big Gains On Greenland
Antarctic Below -50c (-58f)
Records Fall Across The Northwest
Record Snow Destroys Japan's Apple Orchards
Cold Sends Romania's Gas Prices Soaring
"The Freezer Door Is About To Be Opened (Again!)"
Saudi Arabia's Rare Freeze
Japan's Record Snow Turns Deadly
America's Coldest January Since 1988
Record Uptick In Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent
Snow Records Continue To Fall Across Japan
Intense Freeze Sweeps S. Korea
MP's Rare Chill
Turkey's Record Gas Consumption Amid Big Freeze
Record Cold Grips B.C.
Arctic Blast To Wallop The U.S.
Heavy Snow Hits Iran
Himachal Pradesh Suffers Intense Lows/Snows
Rare Low-Elevation Flurries In Taiwan
Japan Ski Resort Surpasses 20 Feet
Antarctic Sea Ice Recovery: Climate Models In Crisis
Concordia At -48.5c (-55.3f)
Arctic Outbreak Round Two
New Nature Study: No Slow Down In Amoc
NOAA Data Practices Investigated
Global Temperatures Cool Significantly In January
Record Snows Persist In Japan
No Sea-Level Rise Since 1800s
Blizzards On Sakhalin
Finland Nears -40c (-40f)
Record February Cold Threatens Northern China
All-Time Snow Totals Sweep Japan
4 Feet In 3 Days Buries The Alps
Stable Temperatures In Greenland, Study Finds
Arctic Blast To Slam The U.S.
Sakhalin Blizzards
Scientists Say Global Warming Could Cool The UK
Snow In Japan Exceeds 17 Feet
Another "Polar Express" Looms For The U.S.
Cold Chokes Spanish Vegetables
NASA Removes Past Temperature Data
Alan
2025-02-22 23:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise that might reduce the
available area of a low-lying island?
Not because of man.
Sea levels have been rising for the past 22,000 years and the last few millimetres are because of us?
Again, the concept of "rate of change" eludes you.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 00:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:31:02 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise that might reduce the
available area of a low-lying island?
Not because of man.
Sea levels have been rising for the past 22,000 years and the last
few millimetres are because of us?
Again, the concept of "rate of change" eludes you.
1/8" per year, cope.
Governor Swill
2025-02-23 03:58:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:31:02 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise that might reduce the
available area of a low-lying island?
Not because of man.
Sea levels have been rising for the past 22,000 years and the last
few millimetres are because of us?
Again, the concept of "rate of change" eludes you.
1/8" per year, cope.
Cite.
Chris Ahlstrom
2025-02-23 11:15:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:31:02 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise that might reduce the
available area of a low-lying island?
Not because of man.
Sea levels have been rising for the past 22,000 years and the last
few millimetres are because of us?
Again, the concept of "rate of change" eludes you.
1/8" per year, cope.
Cite.
Here's the Royal Society:

https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-14/#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20measurements%20of%20tide,(0.14%20inches%20per%20year).

Long-term measurements of tide gauges and recent satellite data show that
global sea level is rising, with the best estimate of the rate of
global-average rise over the last decade being 3.6 mm per year (0.14 inches
per year). The rate of sea level rise has increased since measurements
using altimetry from space were started in 1992; the dominant factor in
global-average sea level rise since 1970 is human-caused warming. The
overall observed rise since 1902 is about 16 cm (6 inches) [Figure 6].

This won't matter to the climate-change troll.
--
"Oh, yes. The important thing about having lots of things to remember is
that you've got to go somewhere afterwards where you can remember them, you
see? You've got to stop. You haven't really been anywhere until you've got
back home. I think that's what I mean."
-- Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 19:38:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 06:15:59 -0500
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
This won't matter to the climate-change troll.
Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch
3.2 mm per year.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 19:34:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:58:35 -0500
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:31:02 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise that might reduce the
available area of a low-lying island?
Not because of man.
Sea levels have been rising for the past 22,000 years and the
last few millimetres are because of us?
Again, the concept of "rate of change" eludes you.
1/8" per year, cope.
Cite.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch
3.2 mm per year.
Alan
2025-02-23 19:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:58:35 -0500
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:31:02 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise that might reduce the
available area of a low-lying island?
Not because of man.
Sea levels have been rising for the past 22,000 years and the
last few millimetres are because of us?
Again, the concept of "rate of change" eludes you.
1/8" per year, cope.
Cite.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch
3.2 mm per year.
From that very page:

'Is sea level rising?

Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate'

Further down:

'With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely
rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century.'
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 21:25:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:49:55 -0800
Post by Alan
'With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely
rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century.'
That presupposes "continued...warming".

No such trend will exist as we are headed for solar minimus now.
Alan
2025-02-23 21:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:49:55 -0800
Post by Alan
'With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely
rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century.'
That presupposes "continued...warming".
No such trend will exist as we are headed for solar minimus now.
The solar cycle is 11 years, and therefore we've been through a couple
in this century alone.
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 22:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:59:19 -0800
Post by Alan
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:49:55 -0800
Post by Alan
'With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will
likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the
current century.'
That presupposes "continued...warming".
No such trend will exist as we are headed for solar minimus now.
The solar cycle is 11 years, and therefore we've been through a
couple in this century alone.
Everyone knows that, or should.

Did you have an actual point to make?
JTEM
2025-02-23 00:28:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan
Again, the concept of "rate of change" eludes you.
You're an idiot.

In 1709 the "Climate" changed so much so fast that France is
estimated to have lost 600,000 people in the ensuing famine.

It was cold. Cold keeps, warm does not.

Secondly, it's not warm. We are well below the planet's
norms, chiefly because we are inside of an ice age. This is
the Holocene, a brief "Warm" spell nestled between teo
glacial periods. "Warmer" would be freaking awesome. The
opposite of "Warmer" means "Colder."

The planet was at least 4C warmer when Antarctica froze
over. CO2 was at least 100% higher. There were no humans.
There was no such thing as fossil fuels.

You glance headlines and have no actual knowledge much less
understanding. You're the perfect drone.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Mercy-a-lago
2025-02-23 00:35:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:28:32 -0500
Post by JTEM
Post by Alan
Again, the concept of "rate of change" eludes you.
You're an idiot.
In 1709 the "Climate" changed so much so fast that France is
estimated to have lost 600,000 people in the ensuing famine.
It was cold. Cold keeps, warm does not.
Secondly, it's not warm. We are well below the planet's
norms, chiefly because we are inside of an ice age. This is
the Holocene, a brief "Warm" spell nestled between teo
glacial periods. "Warmer" would be freaking awesome. The
opposite of "Warmer" means "Colder."
The planet was at least 4C warmer when Antarctica froze
over. CO2 was at least 100% higher. There were no humans.
There was no such thing as fossil fuels.
You glance headlines and have no actual knowledge much less
understanding. You're the perfect drone.
Your summation is crisp and accurate.

Just as our coming ice age will be.
pothead
2025-02-23 01:12:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mercy-a-lago
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:28:32 -0500
Post by JTEM
Post by Alan
Again, the concept of "rate of change" eludes you.
You're an idiot.
In 1709 the "Climate" changed so much so fast that France is
estimated to have lost 600,000 people in the ensuing famine.
It was cold. Cold keeps, warm does not.
Secondly, it's not warm. We are well below the planet's
norms, chiefly because we are inside of an ice age. This is
the Holocene, a brief "Warm" spell nestled between teo
glacial periods. "Warmer" would be freaking awesome. The
opposite of "Warmer" means "Colder."
The planet was at least 4C warmer when Antarctica froze
over. CO2 was at least 100% higher. There were no humans.
There was no such thing as fossil fuels.
You glance headlines and have no actual knowledge much less
understanding. You're the perfect drone.
Your summation is crisp and accurate.
Just as our coming ice age will be.
The easy way to send the climate change Nimrods back to their basements
is to bring up the "Little Ice Age".

The climate has always been evolving and there is little to nothing mankind can
do to change it.
--
pothead

Why did Joe Biden pardon his family?
Read below to learn the reason.
The Biden Crime Family Timeline here:
https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/
AlleyCat
2025-02-23 00:46:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:31:02 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Alan
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:29:05 -0800, Alan says...
Post by Alan
Do you supposed that when sea levels rise that might reduce the
available area of a low-lying island?
Not because of man.
Sea levels have been rising for the past 22,000 years and the last few millimetres are because of us?
Again, the concept of "rate of change" eludes you.
Again, the concept of "refutation" eludes you.

Regardless of the rate... PROVE that last inch is manmade.

PROVE it that CO² is the cause of warming.

PROVE it that today's warming is ANY faster OR warmer than in the last 10,000 when CO² was nearly HALF what it is today.

HOW did it get so warm in the last 10,000 years, without 420ppm ATM CO².

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

Prove that today's warming "rate" is any higher than before.

Loading Image...

=====

February:

US Cold Records Mount

Relentless Snow Slams Turkey

Big Accumulations Across Northern India

Japan Buried

Deep Freeze Grips Central Europe

Long-Standing Records Fall Across America

One Of Antarctica's Earliest -60c's On Record

Record Cold Czech Republic

Northern Hemisphere Snow Above Average

Japan's Resorts At 20+ Feet

Antarctica Nears -60c

Cold Records Begin Falling Across U.S.

Canada Breaks Long-Standing Benchmarks

Montreal's Historic Snowfall

Australia Cools

Drop In Albedo Hunga Tonga Hunga Hai"apai Causing Warming?

"Life-Threatening Cold" Enters The U.S.

Record February Cold Grips Australia

Poland To -41.1c (-42f)

Vostok At -57.4c (-71.3f)

Orilla On Brink Of Historic Snowfall Record

Japan's Snow Continues To Impress

Antarctica At -55.1c (-67.2f)

The Climate Racket Is Collapsing

Big Gains On Greenland

Antarctic Below -50c (-58f)

Records Fall Across The Northwest

Record Snow Destroys Japan's Apple Orchards

Cold Sends Romania's Gas Prices Soaring

"The Freezer Door Is About To Be Opened (Again!)"

Saudi Arabia's Rare Freeze

Japan's Record Snow Turns Deadly

America's Coldest January Since 1988

Record Uptick In Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent

Snow Records Continue To Fall Across Japan

Intense Freeze Sweeps S. Korea

MP's Rare Chill

Turkey's Record Gas Consumption Amid Big Freeze

Record Cold Grips B.C.

Arctic Blast To Wallop The U.S.

Heavy Snow Hits Iran

Himachal Pradesh Suffers Intense Lows/Snows

Rare Low-Elevation Flurries In Taiwan

Japan Ski Resort Surpasses 20 Feet

Antarctic Sea Ice Recovery: Climate Models In Crisis

Concordia At -48.5c (-55.3f)

Arctic Outbreak Round Two

New Nature Study: No Slow Down In Amoc

NOAA Data Practices Investigated

Global Temperatures Cool Significantly In January

Record Snows Persist In Japan

No Sea-Level Rise Since 1800s

Blizzards On Sakhalin

Finland Nears -40c (-40f)

Record February Cold Threatens Northern China

All-Time Snow Totals Sweep Japan

4 Feet In 3 Days Buries The Alps

Stable Temperatures In Greenland, Study Finds

Arctic Blast To Slam The U.S.

Sakhalin Blizzards

Scientists Say Global Warming Could Cool The UK

Snow In Japan Exceeds 17 Feet

Another "Polar Express" Looms For The U.S.

Cold Chokes Spanish Vegetables

NASA Removes Past Temperature Data
Loading...