18-Mile Crack Seen by NASA in Antarctic Glacier

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Images from NASA are showing a new iceberg forming from the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica which will be about 350 square miles in size when it is formed. At this point the glacier is showing a crack 18 miles long, and 800 feet across. This may not prove the Global Warming Theory, but at least this event should stoke the fires of the global warming camp a bit.
 
^^^ Glaciers come and go as do warm and cold spells long before man cam along. At least when you buy snake oil from a salesman you actually get the snake oil. The cult of global warming has been at it some time and has collected untold Billion$. What have we gotten in return?? No actual warming for well over a decade. :rolleyes:
 
and if any thing we are headed for a cool down if the cycles the earth has been though be for are any thing to go by
 
Just days after Bloomberg gets blasted for getting PC gaming wrong, the mighty enthusiast PC gamers decide that thousands of PhDs certainly know less than they do. Sweet irony.
 
Don't anyone go operating any unsinkable cruise ships in the area!
 
Why a crack in an ice shelf. Shocking. As if it's never happened before. You would have thought that this is some sort of unnatural phenomenon.
 
Don't forget it is summer in the southern hemisphere. I don't doubt there is a bit of a warmup down there.
 
Did any of you actually read the story? The Pine Island Glacier is losing 6 meters of land per year. I don't understand how any of this refutes the idea of man-made climate change.
 
BGK said:
Don't know much about science (or math) do you? 1998 is an outlier.
Click to expand...

Ya.. those stooges at the MET don't have a clue. They should consult you before publishing.

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.


:eek:

Oh.. and about those wonderful models this whole scam is based on. Well apparently "divergence" is too a hard concept for the true believers to grasp. Along the lines of all the math-n-science you seem so well versed on. Perhaps an illustration will be helpful:

figure-114.png


Know what most real scientists call it when the actual measured temperature goes in the opposite direction of what their precious computer model(s) predicted? Probably not.

But do go on lecturing.. I enjoy a good comedy. :p
 
XacTactX said:
Did any of you actually read the story? The Pine Island Glacier is losing 6 meters of land per year. I don't understand how any of this refutes the idea of man-made climate change.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can explain to us how it somehow proves it. I took a beer outta my fridge an hour ago... it's not cold any more. MOAR GLOBAL WARMING PROOF!!! :D
 
While I do believe we are in a much warmer period, I'm sure this is a cycle that will hopefully reverse. I can tell in the past 10-15 years our winters have been much shorter than they were when I was a kid. I remember going trick or treating at Halloween and we could not run across yards because of all the snow. Now we only get our first permanent snow in like December. Though, our winters also end later. Usually our snow is gone by end of May, while before it would be gone by start of May. So I don't know if this really qualifies as warming, or just change. Because while we're experiencing more heat, places south of us are experiencing more cold.

I'm sure all our pollution aint helping the situation, but apparently a single volcano eruption creates more pollution than what we do in like a year, or something like that (I forget the actual numbers).
 
If man-made climate change is made up why would 97% of publishing environmental scientists think that climate change is not only occurring, but occurring because of mankind's actions? Why would the UN pass a framework for dozens of countries committing them all to climate change? Are you saying that these scientists and organizations are all in a conspiracy? To do what exactly?
 
Evil Scooter said:
snip
Click to expand...

So linking to a story in a news paper, and showing a graph that could of come from anywhere, proves your point?

You seem to have 0 grasp on how science actually works. Hint: news papers are not science, and neither are random graphs.
 
Not sure what the deal is, but winter lasted probably 2 weeks here in most of the central valley, CA. Normally we have storms and cold from November to March...but not this year. It's been hot enough to go out in shorts and a t-shirt.

No idea if it's "global warming" or what - but I think it's hilarious when people say shit like "global warming is a cult" or something equally as moronic. Yeah - we only dump billions of tons of greenhouse gas into the air on a very constant basis. So do some of you REALLY think something like that just disappears and has NO effect on the planet? You're fucking delusional!
 
Evil Scooter said:
Perhaps you can explain to us how it somehow proves it. I took a beer outta my fridge an hour ago... it's not cold any more. MOAR GLOBAL WARMING PROOF!!! :D
Click to expand...

What was this comment even supposed to mean? How does this comment have anything to do with the thread (global warming)? Taking a beer out of a fridge has no relevance at all to global warming, your ignorance is astounding.
 
We are actually due for a cool down, based on the recent decline/continued lack of sunspotting and data on such past trends, to include the Maunder Minimum.
 
I just want a glass of whiskey big enough to put this ice cube in!
 
XacTactX said:
If man-made climate change is made up why would 97% of publishing environmental scientists think that climate change is not only occurring, but occurring because of mankind's actions? Why would the UN pass a framework for dozens of countries committing them all to climate change? Are you saying that these scientists and organizations are all in a conspiracy? To do what exactly?
Click to expand...

97% eh? I'd love to see where that # was pulled from. Peer reviewed work from the "hide the decline" crowd I'd guess. :p And about the UN and those "dozens of countries" committing. How's Koyoto working out? Last I checked the sane countries are running from it like the plague.

As for the motivation.. greed. Remove rubes of their $$$ and line their pockets with the proceeds:

100 countries back world environment agency: France


. . .

“The new capitalism which emerges from the crisis has to be environmental, or it won’t be new…We are looking for a new kind of environmental governance.”
. . .
Click to expand...

PT Barnum was right.. there is a sucker born every moment.

darkstarcow said:
So linking to a story in a news paper, and showing a graph that could of come from anywhere, proves your point?

You seem to have 0 grasp on how science actually works. Hint: news papers are not science, and neither are random graphs.
Click to expand...

Lets see.. both the story and the graph are referenced. The story backed up by the data from the MET and the graph showing the papers whose work it was derived from. Guess it's a case of reading FTW.. or loss in your case. ;)

darkstarcow said:
What was this comment even supposed to mean? How does this comment have anything to do with the thread (global warming)? Taking a beer out of a fridge has no relevance at all to global warming, your ignorance is astounding.
Click to expand...

But a crack in an ice sheet is proof positive of Thermageddon... because you say so. And you call me ignorant? I have exactly the same amount of proof that you have... none. Yet I'm the "ignorant" one for pointing out the factual vacuum your post created? Oh the humanity. :D
 
Mchart said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Despite millions of years of geological evidence thats presents a precedence (provenance, even) for cyclical climate change, climate "scientists" see a change in temperature and immediately equate it with human use of fossil fuels. It's been said so often its almost cliche, but correlation does not equal causation.

It's incredibly arrogant to think -- without any direct evidence -- that we human beings are obviously the cause of climate change. Hubris knows no bounds, these days.
 
Evil Scooter said:
97% eh? I'd love to see where that # was pulled from. Peer reviewed work from the "hide the decline" crowd I'd guess. :p And about the UN and those "dozens of countries" committing. How's Koyoto working out? Last I checked the sane countries are running from it like the plague.

As for the motivation.. greed. Remove rubes of their $$$ and line their pockets with the proceeds:

100 countries back world environment agency: France




PT Barnum was right.. there is a sucker born every moment.



Lets see.. both the story and the graph are referenced. The story backed up by the data from the MET and the graph showing the papers whose work it was derived from. Guess it's a case of reading FTW.. or loss in your case. ;)



But a crack in an ice sheet is proof positive of Thermageddon... because you say so. And you call me ignorant? I have exactly the same amount of proof that you have... none. Yet I'm the "ignorant" one for pointing out the factual vacuum your post created? Oh the humanity. :D
Click to expand...

I see what you mean about the references being in the links. Though it is still just a small piece of the "puzzle."

A crack in an ice sheet is not proof positive, or negative of global warming.

The biggest problem with 99% of peoples arguments when it comes to global warming, is that they only ever address a couple issues which reinforce their view point.

I believe that humans have an effect on our environment, we continuously pour hundreds of millions, even billions, of tons worth of chemicals into the atmosphere ever year. Do you really want to claim that those chemicals have no effect on the environment? do you really believe those chemicals are having no NEGATIVE effect on our environment?

The earths climate is determined by a lot of factors, a couple off the top of my head:
- The tilt of the earths axis.
- the distance from the sun.
- the earths wobble, since it doesn't spin perfectly.
- How much ice is on the planet, more ice = more energy reflected back into space.
- composition of chemicals in our atmosphere.

Once you account for all the known and uncontrollable forces that affect climate, how do you explain climate change that does not match up to known data?

If the earth is entering a cooling phase, it does not mean "global warming" is not happening. It means we will overall temperature may stay the same or decline, when it would of declined faster without "global warming."
 
global warming is a theory at this point the same way that gravity or evolution is a theory...

if you pick data very specificly, you can make it look like anything, if you take a view of the last 100 years, the data shows a continual, undeniable increase in temperature, and no amount of "well, if you squint funny, and turn your head sideways" can remove that fact.
 
The earths climate is determined by a lot of factors, a couple off the top of my head:
- The tilt of the earths axis.
- the distance from the sun.
- the earths wobble, since it doesn't spin perfectly.
- How much ice is on the planet, more ice = more energy reflected back into space.
- composition of chemicals in our atmosphere.

1) dosnt change, any change would be massively noticeable, as the sun wouldn't rise in the same place year after year.
2) changes throughout the year, but on a per year basis doesn't meaningfully change, this is easy to see as if the distance from the sun to the earth changed, we would be unable to get total eclipses
3) the earths wobble is much more complex, based around the tide, the orbit of the moon, the current weather patterns, but has near 0 affect on the total light absorbed from the sun
4) has a affect, but that only can increase the speed of climate change, and by itself cant cause climate change,
5) is climate change.. and thats what human caused climate change is about.
 
I don't get it, why are people opposed to global warming?
Ice is the killer of life.
Don't believe the fear mongering that global warming will bring catastrophic weather.
My sister-in-law is a geophysicist and she says it's all BS.
 
Oh, and why would scientists say all this if it weren't true?
Well, some of her unscrupulous colleagues are making fortunes lecturing on this crap.
 
Red Squirrel said:
I'm sure all our pollution aint helping the situation, but apparently a single volcano eruption creates more pollution than what we do in like a year, or something like that (I forget the actual numbers).
Click to expand...

Wrong. Human activities release about 130 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as volcanoes do.
 
Mize said:
Just days after Bloomberg gets blasted for getting PC gaming wrong, the mighty enthusiast PC gamers decide that thousands of PhDs certainly know less than they do. Sweet irony.
Click to expand...

Not that, just first it was "global warming" and now it is.. crap whats the new term for it since the Global warming group couldn't explain why the earth has actually been cooler these last few years and the hole in the ozone is closing..

BGK said:
Don't know much about science (or math) do you? 1998 is an outlier.
Click to expand...

decade is 10 years... 1998 is 13 years ago....
 
MrGuvernment said:
Not that, just first it was "global warming" and now it is.. crap whats the new term for it since the Global warming group couldn't explain why the earth has actually been cooler these last few years and the hole in the ozone is closing..
Click to expand...

The ozone hole is closing because humans stopped releasing CFCs into the atmosphere. Humans stopped doing that because that dirty liberal President Ronald Reagan forced us to stop using them.
 
PaperclipGod said:
Despite millions of years of geological evidence that presents a precedence (provenance, even) for cyclical climate change, climate "scientists" see a change in temperature and immediately equate it with human use of fossil fuels. It's been said so often its almost cliche, but correlation does not equal causation.

It's incredibly arrogant to think -- without any direct evidence -- that we human beings are obviously the cause of climate change. Hubris knows no bounds, these days.
Click to expand...

Plus the Earth hasn't had a Magnetic Pole Flip in about 780,000 years, their supposed to happen once every 400,000 years I've read, Right now the North Magnetic Pole is moving towards Russia at 40 miles a Year, the Pole is still in Canadian Waters still for the moment though.
 
PaperclipGod said:
It's incredibly arrogant to think -- without any direct evidence -- that we human beings are obviously the cause of climate change. Hubris knows no bounds, these days.
Click to expand...

1. We are deforesting the planet in large scale fashion.
2. We are pumping ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

True hubris is believing that actions have no consequence. We aren't destroying the planet but we're probably at the very least altering the planet in subtle ways and we have no real idea of the true long term affects.
 
heatlesssun said:
1. We are deforesting the planet in large scale fashion.
2. We are pumping ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

True hubris is believing that actions have no consequence. We aren't destroying the planet but we're probably at the very least altering the planet in subtle ways and we have no real idea of the true long term affects.
Click to expand...

A pole flip is a possible major cause w/Mans help added in for bad measure...
 
Another image for those too lazy to click:

2yo4c34.jpg


350 miles long and 800 feet across? 800 feet across hmm... someone get out the golf clubs.
 
XacTactX said:
Did any of you actually read the story? The Pine Island Glacier is losing 6 meters of land per year. I don't understand how any of this refutes the idea of man-made climate change.
Click to expand...

Where is the proof that man-made global warming exists. And frankly who cares? What sort of runaway heating are you expecting to take place? Besides, can you please tell me what the ideal surface temperature of the earth should be to placate your idea that AGW is in effect?
 
XacTactX said:
If man-made climate change is made up why would 97% of publishing environmental scientists think that climate change is not only occurring, but occurring because of mankind's actions? Why would the UN pass a framework for dozens of countries committing them all to climate change? Are you saying that these scientists and organizations are all in a conspiracy? To do what exactly?
Click to expand...

This is a naive point of view. That you think the UN is a noble institution unto itself is even more naive. Outside of maybe UNICEF, can you tell me of one UN program that is actually successful? How does the UN impose their will on countries that don't comply, hmm? Will they send a peace-keeping force to make them comply? Will they fight back? Passing a framework is meaningless diplomatic masturbation. Look at the fail of Kyoto. Oh everyone nods and hmmms and ahhhs that 'something' must be done, but when you look at the price tag and who is going to foot the bill and watch a massive scam take place, you have to be very blind and have zero taste buds for the snake oil you are buying and drinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top